Shareware Overload Trio 2/Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO/dir33/cwru_ct.zip/90-813.S

Text File | 1993-11-06 | 5KB | 83 lines

Subject:  HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSN. v. TEXAS ATTORNEY GEN., Syllabus




    NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as
is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is
issued.  The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but
has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the
reader.  See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


Syllabus



HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION et al. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

No. 90-813.  Argued April 22, 1991 -- Decided June 20, 1991 {1}

Texas district courts are the State's trial courts of general jurisdiction.
Their judges are elected from electoral districts consisting of one or more
entire counties.  The number of judges in each district varies, but each is
elected by voters in the district in which he or she sits, pursuant to an
at-large, district-wide scheme, and must be a resident of that district.
Although several judicial candidates in the same district may be running in
the same election, each runs for a separately numbered position.  In the
primary, the winner must receive a majority of votes, but in the general
election the candidate with the highest number of votes for a particular
numbered position is elected.  Petitioners in No. 90-974, local chapters of
the League of United Latin American Citizens -- an organization composed of
Mexican-American and African-American Texas residents and others -- filed
suit in the District Court against respondents, the State Attorney General
and other officials, alleging that the electoral scheme in 10 counties
diluted the voting strength of African-American and Hispanic voters in
violation of, inter alia, MDRV 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Petitioners in No. 90-813 -- the Houston Lawyers' Association, an
organization of African-American attorneys registered to vote in one of the
10 counties, and others -- intervened in support of the original
plaintiffs.  The District Court ruled in petitioners' favor and granted
interim relief for the 1990 election.  The Court of Appeals reversed,
holding that judicial elections are not covered by MDRV 2.  A separate
opinion concurring in the judgment agreed that elections for single-member
offices, such as the district judgeships, are exempt from MDRV 2.
According to that opinion, a district court judge, unlike an appellate
judge who acts as a member of a collegial body, is a single-office holder
who has jurisdiction that is coextensive with the geographic area from
which he or she is elected and has authority to render final decisions
independently of other judges serving in the same area or on the same
court.  The concurrence concluded that exemption from MDRV 2 of elections
for district judges is justified, given the State's compelling interest in
linking jurisdiction and elective base for judges acting alone, and given
the risk that attempting to break that linkage might lessen minority
influence by making only a few judges principally accountable to the
minority electorate rather than making all of them partly accountable to
minority voters.

Held: The Act's coverage encompasses the election of executive officers and
trial judges whose responsibilities are exercised independently in an area
coextensive with the districts from which they are elected.  Once a State
decides to elect its trial judges, those elections must be conducted in
compliance with the Act, since judicial elections are not categorically
excluded from coverage.  Chisom v. Roemer, ante, p. ---.  The state
interest expressed in the concurring opinion below does not justify
excluding single-member offices from MDRV 2's coverage.  Rather, it is a
legitimate factor to be considered by courts in determining whether, based
on the "totality of circumstances," a vote dilution violation has occurred
or may be remedied.  Pp. 5-8.

914 F. 2d 620, reversed and remanded.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Marshall,
Blackmun, O'Connor, and Souter, JJ., joined.  Scalia, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
    Together with No. 90-974, League of United Latin American Citizens et
al. v. Attorney General of Texas et al., also on certiorari to the same
court.