|
|
City of Monroe v. United States, 522 U.S. 34 (1997)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
City of Monroe v. United States, 522 U.S. 34 (1997)
City of Monroe v. United States No. 97-122 Decided November 17, 1997 522 U.S. 34
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Syllabus
Before 1966, the city charter of Monroe, Georgia, did not specify whether a mayoral candidate needed a plurality or a majority vote to win election. In practice, the city used plurality or a majority vote to win election. In practice, the city used plurality voting until 1966 and majority voting thereafter. In 1966, Georgia’s General Assembly amended Monroe’s charter to require majority voting, but the change was never submitted for preclearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1968, the state passed the current Municipal Election Code, § 34A-1497(a) of which contains a rule mandating deference to those municipal charters that provide for plurality voting and a default rule requiring a city whose charter has no plurality-vote provision to use majority voting. Section 34A-1497(a) was precleared by the United States Attorney General. When Monroe submitted its 1990 charter for preclearance, it did not ask to have the charter’s majority vote provision precleared. Nonetheless, the Attorney General objected to the provision and sued Monroe and city officials to enjoin majority voting and require a return to plurality voting. In granting the government summary judgment, the three-judge district court rejected Monroe’s claim that preclearance of the 1968 state code encompassed Monroe’s adoption of a majority system.
Held: Monroe may implement § 34A-1497(a)’s precleared default rule. The section’s deference rule does not apply here, because Monroe’s charter does not have and has not had a plurality vote provision. Thus, the district court erred in basing its contrary conclusion on City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 169-170, n.6, which concerned only the deference rule. In contrast, this case is controlled by the default rule. It therefore satisfies all of City of Rome’s preclearance requirements: Georgia submitted the default rule to the Attorney General in an unambiguous and recordable manner, and gave the Attorney General adequate opportunity to determine the purpose of the rule’s electoral changes and whether such changes would adversely affect minority voting.
962 F.Supp. 1501 reversed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," City of Monroe v. United States, 522 U.S. 34 (1997) in 522 U.S. 34 522 U.S. 35. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9LZTDD37ELEH9PR.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." City of Monroe v. United States, 522 U.S. 34 (1997), in 522 U.S. 34, page 522 U.S. 35. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9LZTDD37ELEH9PR.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in City of Monroe v. United States, 522 U.S. 34 (1997). cited in 1997, 522 U.S. 34, pp.522 U.S. 35. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9LZTDD37ELEH9PR.
|