Basically Law

Read the opinion here.

Issue.  Does the at-large system of elections in Burke County, Georgia violate the Equal Protection Clause even though the system was not up set for discriminatory purposes but its continued use might?

Background.  Burke County, Georgia is a rural community that has a slight majority of African-Americans although they make up a slight minority of those of voting age (and 38% of registered voters).  The County is governed by a five member council, all members of which are voted at-large, as opposed to districts.  This at-large system had been in place since 1911 and was not created for the purpose of diluting the black vote (blacks could not vote anyway).

Since the Voting Rights Act and increased black registration, no African-American has won an at-large seat despite several African-Americans running for office.  A group of African-American candidates sued and claimed that while the system was not created for discriminatory reasons, it was being maintained for invidious purposes.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the District Court agreed and ordered Burke County to elect its members through single member districts.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Supreme Court.

Court's Analysis.  The case turned on whether the District Court applied the proper evidentiary standard when it ruled that the County maintained its voting system for discriminatory purposes.  The Supreme Court believed that the lower court did and it did not want to disturb its findings.

While a discriminatory purpose needs to be demonstrated, it need not be proved by direct evidence but "demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available."

In this case, the District Court found that the at-large system resulted in the election of only white Council members who were not responsive or accountable to black residents of the County.  Voting was done along racial lines in the County.  Further, the history of disenfranchisement and sub-par education had placed African-Americans at a disadvantage.  African Americans still remained disproportionately under represented on registration rolls.  That fact that no African American Councilman had been elected is further evidence of the discriminatory intent in maintaining this voting system.

Since the District Court did its job and its findings were not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court refused to disturb the ruling.  Thus, Burke County was required to adopt a single member district voting system to prevent the dilution of black votes.

Afterword.  Is it fair to say that only African Americans can represent other African Americans?  Is it just true of the South because of its history?  Is this nothing more that constitutionalizing identity politics?  At the same time, if elected officials are ignoring the needs and concerns of minorities because they are minorities, should the courts step in and mitigation against such dilution?  We do live in a representative republic.  Why must we have a winner-take-all single district system?  Is proportional representation not the best way to prevent voter/minority dilution?