<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:31:24 GMT--><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rss="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"><rss:channel rdf:about="http://www.basicallylaw.com/rogers-v-lodge-1982/"><rss:title>Rogers v. Lodge (1982)</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.basicallylaw.com/rogers-v-lodge-1982/</rss:link><rss:description></rss:description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><dc:date>2010-07-30T23:31:24Z</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.squarespace.com/">Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</admin:generatorAgent><rss:items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.basicallylaw.com/rogers-v-lodge-1982/2009/11/28/rogers-v-lodge-1982.html"/></rdf:Seq></rss:items></rss:channel><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.basicallylaw.com/rogers-v-lodge-1982/2009/11/28/rogers-v-lodge-1982.html"><rss:title>Rogers v. Lodge (1982)</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.basicallylaw.com/rogers-v-lodge-1982/2009/11/28/rogers-v-lodge-1982.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator><dc:date>2009-11-29T00:30:49Z</dc:date><dc:subject></dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read the opinion <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/458/613/case.html">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Issue</span></strong>.&nbsp; 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?</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Background</span></strong>.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; The County is governed by a five member council, all members of which are voted at-large, as opposed to districts.&nbsp; 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).</p>
<p>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.&nbsp; A group of African-American candidates sued and claimed that while the system was not created for discriminatory reasons, it&nbsp;was being maintained for invidious purposes.&nbsp; After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the District Court agreed and ordered Burke County to elect its members through single member districts.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Supreme Court.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Court's Analysis</span></strong>.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The Supreme Court believed that the lower court did and it did not want to disturb its findings.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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.&nbsp; Voting was done along racial lines in the County.&nbsp; Further, the history of disenfranchisement and sub-par education had placed African-Americans at a disadvantage.&nbsp; African Americans still remained disproportionately under represented&nbsp;on registration rolls.&nbsp; That fact that no African American Councilman had been elected is further evidence of the discriminatory intent in maintaining this voting system.</p>
<p>Since the District Court did its job and its findings were not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court refused to disturb the ruling.&nbsp; Thus, Burke County&nbsp;was required to adopt a single member district voting system to prevent the dilution of black votes.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Afterword</span></strong>.&nbsp; Is it fair to say that only African Americans can represent other African Americans?&nbsp; Is it just true of the South because of its history?&nbsp; Is this nothing more that constitutionalizing identity politics?&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; We do live in a representative republic.&nbsp; Why must we have a winner-take-all single district system?&nbsp; Is proportional representation not the best way to prevent voter/minority dilution?</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item></rdf:RDF>