holding that the electoral system of voting in Mobile did not violate the rights of the city's Black voters in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment, since Black voters in Mobile "register and vote without hindrance" and thus their "freedom to vote has not been denied or abridged by anyone"
How later courts described this case
- holding that the electoral system of voting in Mobile did not violate the rights of the city's Black voters in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment, since Black voters in Mobile "register and vote without hindrance" and thus their "freedom to vote has not been denied or abridged by anyone"
- noting that the Supreme Court's decisions "confirm the principle that racially discriminatory motivation is a necessary ingredient of a Fifteenth Amendment violation"
- recognizing the constitutional right "to equal participation in the electoral process"
- interpreting prior version of section 2 to require finding of discriminatory purpose
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in Thornburg v. Gingles — not on the Supreme Court's list
See also Bolden , 446 U.S. at 65, 100 S.Ct. 1519 (holding that the electoral system of voting in Mobile did not violate the rights of the city's Black voters in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment, since Black voters in Mobile "register and vote without hindrance" and thus their "freedom to vote has not been denied or abridged by anyone"), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Thornburg , 478 U.S.…
The opinion
446 U.S. 236 (1980)
WILLIAMS ET AL.
v.
BROWN ET AL.
No. 78-357.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 19, 1979.
Reargued October 29, 1979.
Decided April 22, 1980.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
William H. Allen reargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Donald Harrison, John Michael Clear, and Robert C. Campbell III.
Eric Schnapper reargued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were J. U. Blacksher, Larry Menefee, and Jack Greenberg.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Turner reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Brian K. Landsberg, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Dennis J. Dimsey, and Miriam R. Eisenstein.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55.
It is so ordered.
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, see ante, p. 94.]
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, see ante, p. 103.]
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.
I, of course, must accept the Court's vacation of the judgment and its remand. If, however, we were to reach the *237 merits, then, in contrast to the result in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.
Because the decision below in this case is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law virtually identical to those in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case, ante, p. 94.