John Paul Stevens

“ Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 91 S.Ct. 431, 27 L.Ed.2d 476 (1971) , for example, Justice Harlan expressed the view that the Court was mistaken in holding that annexations are within the scope of § 5 and that the Court had gone too far in its interpretation of "with respect to voting": "Given a change with an effect on voting, a set of circumstances may be conceived with respect to almost any situation in which the change will bear more heavily on one race than on another. In effect, therefore, the Court requires submission of any change which has an effect on voting." ”

“ Nothing in Allen implied that the Court had defined an exhaustive category of changes covered by the Act. [13] On the contrary, the Court described § 5 as "aimed at the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race," id., at 565, 89 S.Ct., at 831, and expressed, in no uncertain terms, that § 5 should be given "the broadest possible scope." Id., at 567, 89 S.Ct., at 832. Aware of the consequences of its decision, the Court gave its broad reading of the Act "only prospective effect." ”

“ A resolution that reallocates decisionmaking power by transferring authority from an elected district representative to an official, or a group, controlled by the majority, has the same potential for discrimination against the constituents in the disadvantaged districts. ”

“ A whole arsenal of racist weapons has been perfected. Boundary lines have been gerrymandered, elections have been switched to an at-large basis, counties have been consolidated, elective offices have been abolished where blacks had a chance of winning, the appointment process has been substituted for the elective process, election officials have withheld the necessary information for voting or running for office, and both physical and economic intimidation have been employed. ”

“ The consent decree specified that the commissioners elected in 1986 were to have the same duties as the four holdover commissioners. Ibid. (decree provided that the two new commissioners " 'shall have all the rights, privileges, duties and immunities of the other commissioners, who have heretofore been elected at large' ") . In August, 1987, however, the commission passed the Road Supervision Resolution, which authorized the four holdover commissioners to continue to exercise authority over road operations in their districts, but which assigned non-road duties to the two new commissioners. ”

“ I would, however, adopt a broader standard that would require preclearance in this case as well. The proper test, I believe, is suggested by the examples of resistance to the increase in black registration that were noted in our opinion in Perkins v. Matthews, supra. [26]
Changes from district voting to at-large voting, the gerrymandering of district boundary lines, and the replacement of an elected official with an appointed official, all share the characteristic of enhancing the power of the majority over a segment of the political community that might otherwise be adequately represented. ”

“ Both resolutions diminished the decisionmaking authority of the newly-elected black commissioner, and both were passed on the same day and in response to the districting changes effected by the consent decree. [23]
At the very least, I would hold that the reallocation of decisionmaking authority of an elective office that is taken (1) after the victory of a black candidate, and (2) after the entry of a consent decree designed to give black voters an opportunity to have representation on an elective body, is covered by § 5. ”

“ Id., at 549, n. 5, 89 S.Ct., at 549, n. 5. Figures available in 1978 indicated that the Department processed 1800 submissions annually, and had approved over 98 percent of those submissions. Dougherty County Bd. of Education v. White, 439 U.S., at 41, 99 S.Ct., at 374.↑ In the past, various Members of the Court have objected to the types of changes that require preclearance under § 5 in covered States, and have predicted that the Court's construction of the statute would leave it without boundaries. ”

“ Hampton County Election Comm'n, 470 U.S., at 176, 105 S.Ct., at 1134 (footnote omitted) .↑ Congress recognized that "since the adoption of the Voting Rights Act, covered jurisdictions have substantially moved from direct, over [t] impediments to the right to vote to more sophisticated devices that dilute minority voting strength," S.Rep. No. 97-417, p. 10 (1982) , U.S.C.ode Cong. & Admin. News 1982, pp. 177, 187, and that § 5 was intended to be responsive to this shift:↑ On September 10, 1971, the Department of Justice first adopted regulations implementing § 5's preclearance provisions. ”

“ United States, 411 U.S. 526, 536-541, 93 S.Ct. 1702, 1708-1711, 36 L.Ed.2d 472 (1973) (approving regulations) .↑ The District Court was also wrong to exempt the Common Fund Resolution from § 5 preclearance on the ground that "the common fund resolution was, in practical terms, insignificant in comparison to the entire Commission's authority. . . ." App. to Juris. Statement of Appellant Presley 19a. This is clearly the wrong test in light of our earlier cases, in which we have said that even "minor" changes affecting elections and voting must be precleared. Allen v. ”