Beer v. United States - 425 U.S. 130, 96 S. Ct. 1357 (1976)

Rule:

A determination of when a legislative reapportionment has the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color depends upon the intent of Congress in enacting the Voting Rights Act and specifically § 5 of the Act. 

Facts:

Pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USCS 1973c), which provides that state or political subdivisions subject to the Act may obtain the approval of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for changes in voting matters when it is found that the change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color," the City of New Orleans brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a judgment declaring that a reapportionment plan for city councilmanic districts did not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. The District Court refused to approve the plan, which provided for Negro population majorities in two councilmanic districts and a Negro voter majority in one district, holding that (1) the failure of the plan to alter the 1954 city charter provision establishing two at-large city councilmanic seats had the effect, in itself, of abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and (2) the plan would have the effect of abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, since under the plan Negroes would probably be able to elect only one councilman and New Orleans had not demonstrated that the proposed plan was the only feasible plan. New Orleans appealed and asserted that the district court used an incorrect standard when it assessed the effect of the plan.

Issue:

Did the district court properly refuse the reapportionment plan for New Orleans’ councilman districts?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the plan was improperly rejected under § 5 on the ground that it did not eliminate at-large councilman seats because § 5 applied only to proposed changes in voting procedures and that the plan did not violate § 5 because it enhanced the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of their right to vote.