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Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in Thornburg v. Gingles — not on the Supreme Court's list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"register and vote without hindrance" and thus their "freedom to vote has not been denied or abridged by anyone"), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Thornburg , 478 U.S.…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