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Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in Thornburg v. Gingles — not on the Supreme Court's list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"register and vote without hindrance" and thus their "freedom to vote has not been denied or abridged by anyone"), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Thornburg , 478 U.S.…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
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.