Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1991

Chisom v. Roemer

501 U.S. 380 | 111 S. Ct. 2354 | 115 L. Ed. 2d 348 | 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3627

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Chisom held that when a State chooses to elect its judges, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to those elections and permits results-based minority vote-dilution claims.

Background

A class of approximately 135,000 Black registered voters in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, challenged the First Supreme Court District’s method of electing two Louisiana Supreme Court justices at large. The district combined Orleans Parish, where more than half of registered voters were Black, with three predominantly white parishes. Plaintiffs alleged that the multimember district diluted Black voting strength in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. They sought to split the district into an Orleans Parish district and a district comprising the other three parishes; the proposed Orleans district would have a Black voting-age and registered-voter majority.

The District Court initially dismissed the complaint, reasoning that judges were not “representatives” within § 2 and that the constitutional claims inadequately alleged discriminatory intent. The Fifth Circuit initially reversed, concluding that judicial elections fell within § 2. After remand and a bench trial, however, the District Court found no § 2 violation under Thornburg v. Gingles and dismissed the constitutional claims.

While the plaintiffs’ appeal was pending, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc held in LULAC v. Clements that § 2’s results test did not permit vote-dilution claims in judicial elections because judges are not “representatives.” Applying LULAC, the Fifth Circuit remanded this case with instructions to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted review. The constitutional claims, the evidence under Gingles, and the proper remedy were not before the Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982 to adopt a results test, applies to vote-dilution claims in state judicial elections.

Holding

Yes. State judicial elections fall within § 2’s coverage, including its results-based prohibition on minority vote dilution.

Reasoning

The Court began with the original Act’s broad language. Section 2 prohibited any voting qualification, standard, practice, or procedure that denied or abridged the right to vote because of race, while the Act defined “vote” and “voting” to include all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election for public office. The parties agreed that § 2 covered judicial elections before 1982, and the Court had already held that § 5’s similarly broad language covers judicial elections.

The 1982 amendment expanded § 2 by eliminating the need to prove discriminatory intent and directing courts to assess discriminatory results under the totality of the circumstances. Nothing in the amendment’s text or extensive legislative history indicated that Congress meant to remove judicial elections from coverage while otherwise broadening the Act’s protections. The Court found it implausible that Congress would silently withdraw this important category of elections from the new results test.

The word “representatives” in § 2(b), which refers to an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of one’s choice, did not exclude elected judges. Congress replaced the narrower term “legislators,” drawn from prior cases, with “representatives,” signaling coverage beyond legislative elections. In the context of popular elections, the term reasonably describes those selected by voters to fill public office, including elected judges.

Louisiana’s decision to elect judges was central to the Court’s reasoning. Although judges ideally should be insulated from public pressure and need not be elected at all, Louisiana required judicial candidates to seek popular support and required justices to reside in and be elected from designated districts. A State that chooses popular judicial elections cannot treat the judicial role as wholly detached from the electorate for purposes of the Voting Rights Act.

The Court also relied on the close relationship between §§ 2 and 5. Section 5 already barred covered jurisdictions from implementing new discriminatory judicial-election practices without preclearance. Excluding existing judicial-election systems from § 2 would create the anomalous result that a State could not newly adopt a discriminatory system but could retain an equally discriminatory system already in force.

Issue #2

Whether § 2(b) creates separate protections for participation claims and for vote-dilution claims, allowing judicial-election claims only when they concern ballot access or other direct barriers to participation.

Holding

No. Section 2 creates a unitary right to an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of one’s choice; courts may not separate the two phrases to exclude judicial vote-dilution claims.

Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s LULAC decision treated § 2(b) as establishing two distinct rights: a general right to participate in the political process and a separate right to elect representatives of one’s choice. Under that view, direct barriers to voting in judicial elections could be challenged, but electoral structures that diluted minority voting strength could not. The Supreme Court rejected that distinction as inconsistent with the statutory text.

Section 2(a) speaks of a single “right” to vote, and § 2(b) describes a single “opportunity” to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of choice. The Court emphasized that Congress used “and,” not “or.” The ability to participate and the ability to influence election outcomes are interrelated, and the statute does not authorize courts to divide one congressionally created claim into two independent claims.

The language of § 2(b) was modeled on White v. Regester and Whitcomb v. Chavis, where the Court likewise treated the opportunity to participate politically and the opportunity to elect preferred officials as connected concepts. Because the 1982 results test applies to all § 2 claims, the Court held that judicial elections cannot be excluded from vote-dilution claims by isolating one clause of § 2(b).

The Court rejected the argument that the inapplicability of the constitutional one-person, one-vote rule to judicial elections made § 2 unworkable. Wells v. Edwards addressed an Equal Protection challenge, not the interpretation of a federal statute enacted to provide protections beyond those guaranteed directly by the Constitution. Any difficulty in applying § 2’s totality-of-the-circumstances standard did not justify narrowing the statute’s broad coverage.

Dissents

Justice Scalia

Reasoning

Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy, argued that the Court abandoned ordinary textual interpretation. In his view, the analysis should begin with the ordinary meaning of “representatives,” which ordinarily refers to officials elected to act on behalf of the people. Judges instead represent the law and often must rule against popular opinion; therefore, they are not representatives in the ordinary sense of § 2(b).

He maintained that the 1982 amendment did not withdraw preexisting protection from judicial elections. The original § 2, which barred intentional racial discrimination, covered all elections, and constitutional protections remained available. The only question was how far Congress extended the new results-based remedy, and the text extended vote-dilution claims only to elections for representatives.

Justice Scalia also disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that § 2(b) creates one inseparable right. He read the phrases concerning participation in the political process and election of preferred representatives as protecting distinct interests. Thus, judicial elections could still be subject to § 2 challenges involving unequal access to registration or voting, even though they could not be subject to vote-dilution claims.

In his view, Congress’s deliberate choice of “representatives” rather than the broader word “candidates” was meaningful. It preserved a logical limit on vote-dilution claims: such claims traditionally rest on a one-person, one-vote baseline, which applies to representative bodies but not to judicial elections. Since the Court had held that one-person, one-vote does not govern judicial elections, he believed Congress would have spoken clearly had it intended to create a new, standardless vote-dilution remedy for judges.

Justice Scalia further argued that there was no anomaly between applying § 5 and limiting § 2. Section 5 is a preclearance mechanism that prevents covered jurisdictions from implementing electoral changes that violate either the Constitution or voting-rights laws, including intentional discrimination in judicial elections. Its coverage did not require that § 2’s results-based vote-dilution remedy extend to judges.

Justice Kennedy

Reasoning

Justice Kennedy joined Justice Scalia’s dissent in full. He added that the case involved statutory construction alone and did not resolve whether the results-test interpretation of § 2 adopted in Thornburg v. Gingles is itself consistent with the Constitution.