Mobile v. Bolden

446 U.S. 55 (1980), argued 19 Mar. 1979, reargued 29 Oct. 1979, decided 22 Apr. 1980 by vote of 6 to 3; Stewart for the Court, Blackmun concurring in the result, Stevens concurring in the judgment, Brennan, White, and Marshall in dissent. This case was brought on behalf of the black residents of Mobile, Alabama. They alleged that the all‐white Mobile City Commission, elected at large, diluted the voting strength of blacks in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. No black had ever served on the five‐member commission since its inception in 1911. The district court found constitutional violations and the court of appeals affirmed. In the Supreme Court the United States argued for the black parties.

The plurality opinion focused on the standard necessary to make out a claim of racial discrimination under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments where state action, on its face, is racially neutral. Examining the Fifteenth Amendment and reviewing numerous voting rights cases, the Court rejected a discriminatory result standard and concluded that a showing of a discriminatory purpose was required. Similarly, the Court relied on Washington v. Davis (1976), Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977), and *Personnel Administrator v. Feeney (1979) for the proposition that a showing of discriminatory intent was necessary under the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying this discriminatory intent standard to Mobile, the Court found no constitutional violation. Mobile's black citizens could register and vote without hindrance, and there were not official obstacles hindering blacks in seeking elective office. Finally, the Court strongly criticized the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment requires or guarantees proportional representation.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, in a lengthy and angry dissent, labeled the Court an accessory to the perpetuation of racial discrimination. He rejected the necessity of finding a discriminatory intent and argued for a discriminatory effects test.

Critics of the decision maintain that the Court's discriminatory purpose test is too burdensome. Mobile caused a firestorm of protest. Congress, in its 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act, incorporated a modified effects test into the act.

See also Race and Racism; State Action.

— Gerald N. Rosenberg

Mobile v. Bolden
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 19, 1979 Reargued October 29, 1979 Decided April 22, 1980
Full case name: City of Mobile, Alabama, et al. v. Bolden, et al. Citations: 446 U.S. 55; 100 S. Ct. 1490; 64 L. Ed. 2d 47; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 121 Prior history: Judgement for plaintiffs, 423 F. Supp. 384; affirmed 571 F.2d 238, probable jurisdiction noted, 439 U.S. 815
Holding
Facially neutral electoral districting is constitutional, even if the at-large elections dilute the voting strength of black citizens.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens
Case opinions
Plurality by: Stewart Joined by: Burger, Powell, Rehnquist Concurrence by: Blackmun Concurrence by: Stevens Dissent by: Brennan Dissent by: White Dissent by: Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. XIV, XV; 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973

Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)^[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that electoral districts must be drawn with racially discriminatory effect and intent to warrant constitutional protection. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot, the court had held that creating electoral districts which disenfranchised blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment, but it did not as readily distinguish between effect and intent as it would in Mobile.

Facts

The city of Mobile, Alabama governs itself by a City Commission that exercises all legislative, executive and administrative power. The three members of the Commission are elected from the city at-large, instead of from three separate single-member districts. Since each Commissioner is elected from the entire city, it is more difficult for a geographically concentrated constituency, such as blacks, to elect someone sympathetic to their interests. A class-action suit was filed on behalf of all the city's black residents against the city itself and all three Commissioners. Their complaint alleged that the city's electoral system violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, among other laws. The District Court found for the city's black residents and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue

The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether this at-large system violated Amendments Fourteen or Fifteen or the Voting Rights Act.

Result

The court ruled 6-3 for the city of Mobile. In his plurality opinion, Stewart concluded that the relevant language of the Voting Rights Act paralleled that of the Fifteenth Amendment. Stewart dismissed both the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, deciding that both Amendments required proof of racially-motivated intent. Stevens applied a slightly different standard in his concurring opinion but came to the same result about the Constitutionality of Mobile's system.

Analysis

The case somewhat limited the court's previous holding in Gomillion.

References

1. ^ 446 U.S. 55 (Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com)

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)