... Congress made clear that a violation of § 2 could be established by proof of discriminatory results alone. It is difficult to believe that Congress, in an express effort to broaden the protection afforded by the Voting Rights Act, withdrew, without comment, an important category of elections from that protection. Today we reject such an anomalous view and hold that State judicial elections are included within the ambit of § 2 as amended.
It is equally clear, in our opinion, that the coverage of the Act encompasses the election of executive officers and trial judges whose responsibilities are exercised independently in an area coextensive with the districts from which they are elected. If a State decides to elect its trial judges, as Texas did in 1861, those elections must be conducted in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
“We have no reason to doubt that the governor and legislature of Louisiana will promptly and properly respond to any violations of constitutional rights of the citizens of Louisiana. Should they fail to do so, it will then be incumbent upon the district court to act.”
In the case of the appellate courts in Louisiana, it is clear that the state interests are weighted differently from those of the district courts. The terms of appellate judges are ten years; those of district courts are six years. The terms of appellate judges are staggered; those of district courts are not. The districts from which appellate judges are elected are almost always larger than those from which district judges are elected. For its own reasons, the State of Louisiana has chosen to make the appellate judges less “responsive” to the electorate by lengthening their terms and enlarging their districts and to give them greater opportunity to be detached and objective. It has chosen to place in the court on which they serve a greater emphasis on continuity and stability; it has not made the same choice with respect to district judges.
The Fourth Circuit: |
District 1 | 8 judges | 496,938 |
District 2 | 1 judge | 25,575 |
District 3 | 1 judge | 66,631 |
At–Large | 2 judges | 589,144 |
The Fifth Circuit: |
District 1 | 6 judges | 448,306 |
District 2 | 1 judge | 36,294 |
District 3 | 1 judge | 46,139 |
In awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court is entitled to and should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics and complexities of state election laws, and should act and rely upon general equitable principles ...
[T]his Court and other District Courts have found that where a governing body has been elected under a malapportioned plan, or an election scheme such as at-large elections, cancelling out the voting strength of a cognizable portion of the populace, thus denying them access to the political process, prompt new elections are appropriate.
APPENDIX A |
RECENT LEGISLATION SUBDIVIDING JUDICIAL DISTRICTS |
Act No. | District as Continued | District Created |
---|---|---|
1976 No. 47 | 8th JDC—Winn | 35th JDC—Grant |
16,269* | 17,526* | |
17,253** | 16,703** | |
1979 No. 635 | 10th JDC—Natchitoches | 39th JDC—Red River |
36,689* | 9,387* | |
39,863** | 10,433** | |
1978 No. 14 | 14th JDC—Calcasieu | 38th JDC—Cameron |
168,134* | 9,260* | |
167,223** | 9,336** | |
1975 No. 13 | 25th JDC—Plaquemines | 34th JDC—St. Bernard |
25,575* | 66,631* | |
26,049** | 64,097** | |
1977 No. 620 | 28th JDC—LaSalle | 37th JDC—Caldwell |
13,662* | 9,810* | |
17,004** | 10,761** | |
1982 No. 21 | 29th JDC—St. Charles | 40th JDC—St. John |
42,437* | the Baptist—39,996* | |
37,259** | 31,924** | |
1977 No. 164 | 30th JDC—Vernon | 36th JDC—Beauregard |
61,961* | 30,083* | |
53,475** | 29,692** | |
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |