City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980 00:00:00)

U.S. Supreme Court CITY OF ROME v. UNITED STATES, 446 U.S. 156 (1980) 446 U.S. 156

CITY OF ROME ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 78-1840. Argued October 10, 1979. Decided April 22, 1980.

In 1966, appellant city of Rome, Ga., made certain changes in its electoral system, including provisions for majority rather than plurality vote for each of the nine members of the City Commission; for three numbered posts within each of the three (reduced from nine) wards; and for staggered terms for the commissioners and for members of the Board of Education from each ward; and a requirement that members of the Board reside in the wards from which they were elected. In addition, the city made 60 annexations between November 1, 1964, and February 10, 1975. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act) requires preclearance by the Attorney General of the United States or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of any change in a "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" made after November 1, 1964, by jurisdictions that fall within the coverage formula set forth in 4 (b) of the Act. Section 5 further provides that the Attorney General may clear a voting practice only if it "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." Georgia was designated a covered jurisdiction in 1965, and the municipalities of that State accordingly must comply with the preclearance procedure. Eventually, after at first having failed to do so, Rome submitted the annexations and the 1966 electoral changes for preclearance, but the Attorney General declined to preclear the above-enumerated electoral changes, concluding that in a city such as Rome, in which the population is predominately white and racial bloc voting has been common, such electoral changes would deprive Negro voters of the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The Attorney General also refused to preclear 13 of the 60 annexations, finding that the city had not carried its burden of proving that the disapproved annexations would not dilute the Negro vote. Subsequently, however, in response to the city's motion for reconsideration, the Attorney General agreed to preclear the 13 annexations for Board of Education elections but still refused to preclear them for City Commission elections. The city and two of its officials then filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking relief from the Act based on a variety

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 157]

of claims. A three-judge court rejected the city's arguments and granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the disapproved electoral changes and annexations, while not made for any discriminatory purpose, did have a discriminatory effect. The court refused to allow the city to "bail out" of the Act's coverage pursuant to 4 (a), which allows a covered jurisdiction to escape 5's preclearance requirement by bringing a declaratory judgment action and proving that no "test or device" has been used in the jurisdiction during the 17 years preceding the filing of the action "for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color."

Held:

1. The city may not use 4 (a)'s "bailout" procedure. In 4 (a)'s terms, the issue depends on whether the city is either a "State with respect to which the determinations have been made" under 4 (b) or a "political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit," and here the city fails to meet the definition of either term, since 4 (b)'s coverage formula has never been applied to it. The city comes within the Act only because it is part of a covered State, and, hence, any "bailout" action to exempt the city must be filed by, and seek to exempt all of, the State. Moreover, the legislative history precludes any arguments that 4 (a)'s "bailout" procedure, made available to a covered "State," was also implicitly made available to political units in the State. Pp. 162-169.

2. The 60-day period under the Attorney General's regulation requiring requests for reconsideration of his refusal to preclear electoral changes to be decided within 60 days of their receipt, commences anew when the submitting jurisdiction deems its initial submission on a reconsideration motion to be inadequate and decides to supplement it. Thus, here, where the city, less than 60 days prior to the Attorney General's decision on the city's reconsideration motion, submitted, on its own accord, affidavits to supplement the motion, the Attorney General's response was timely. A contrary ruling that the 60-day period ran continuously from the date of the initial submission of the reconsideration motion would mean that the Attorney General would, in some cases, be unable to give adequate consideration to materials submitted in piecemeal fashion, and might be able to respond only by denying the reconsideration motion. Pp. 170-172.

3. By describing in 5 the elements of discriminatory purpose and effect in the conjunctive, Congress plainly intended that a voting practice not be precleared unless both discriminatory purpose and effect are absent. Furthermore, Congress recognized this when, in 1975, it extended the Act for another seven years. Pp. 172-173.

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 158]

4. The Act does not exceed Congress' power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. Under 2 of that Amendment, Congress may prohibit practices that in and of themselves do not violate 1 of the Amendment, so long as the prohibitions attacking racial discrimination in voting are "appropriate." Here, the Act's ban on electoral changes that are discriminatory in effect is an appropriate method of promoting the Fifteenth Amendment's purposes, even if it is assumed that 1 prohibits only intentional discrimination in voting. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301. Congress could rationally have concluded that, because electoral changes by jurisdictions with a demonstrable history of intentional racial discrimination in voting create a risk of purposeful discrimination, it was proper to prohibit changes that have a discriminatory impact. Pp. 173-178.

5. The Act does not violate principles of federalism. Principles of federalism that might otherwise be an obstacle to congressional authority are necessarily overridden by the power to enforce the Civil War Amendments "by appropriate legislation," Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, such Amendments being specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty. Accordingly, Congress had the authority to regulate state and local voting through the provisions of the Act. Pp. 178-180.

6. There is no merit to appellants' contention that the Act and its preclearance requirement had outlived their usefulness by 1975, when Congress extended the Act for another seven years. In view of Congress' considered determination that at least another seven years of statutory remedies were necessary to counter the perpetuation of 95 years of pervasive voting discrimination, the extension of the Act was plainly a constitutional method of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment. Pp. 180-182.

7. Nor is there any merit to the individual appellants' argument that, because no elections have been held in appellant city since 1974, their First, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment rights as private citizens of the city have been abridged. Under circumstances where, upon the Attorney General's refusal to preclear the electoral changes, the city could have conducted elections under its prior electoral scheme, the city's failure to hold elections can only be attributed to its own officials, and not the operation of the Act. Pp. 182-183.

8. The District Court's findings that the city had failed to prove that the 1966 electoral changes and the annexations disapproved by the Attorney General did not have a discriminatory effect are not clearly erroneous. Pp. 183-187.

450 F. Supp. 378 and 472 F. Supp. 221, affirmed.

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 159]

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 187, and STEVENS, J., post, p. 190, filed concurring opinions. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 193. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 206.

Robert M. Brinson argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were William E. Sumner and Joseph W. Dorn.

Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Brian K. Landsberg, Walter W. Barnett, Mildred M. Matesich, and Mark L. Gross.*

[Footnote *] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by A. F. Summer, Attorney General, and Jerris Leonard for the State of Mississippi; and by Ronald A. Zumbrun, John H. Findley, and Raymond M. Momboisse for the Pacific Legal Foundation.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its applicability to electoral changes and annexations made by the city of Rome, Ga.

I

This is a declaratory judgment action brought by appellant city of Rome, a municipality in northwestern Georgia, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq. In 1970 the city had a population of 30,759, the racial composition of which was 76.6% white and 23.4% Negro. The voting-age population in 1970 was 79.4% white and 20.6% Negro.

The governmental structure of the city is established by a charter enacted in 1918 by the General Assembly of Georgia.

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 160]

Before the amendments at issue in this case, Rome's city charter provided for a nine-member City Commission and a five-member Board of Education to be elected concurrently on an at-large basis by a plurality of the vote. The city was divided into nine wards, with one city commissioner from each ward to be chosen in the citywide election. There was no residency requirement for Board of Education candidates.

In 1966, the General Assembly of Georgia passed several laws of local application that extensively amended the electoral provisions of the city's charter. These enactments altered the Rome electoral scheme in the following ways:

(1) the number of wards was reduced from nine to three;

(2) each of the nine commissioners would henceforth be elected at-large to one of three numbered posts established within each ward;

(3) each commissioner would be elected by majority rather than plurality vote, and if no candidate for a particular position received a majority, a runoff election would be held between the two candidates who had received the largest number of votes;

(4) the terms of the three commissioners from each ward would be staggered;

(5) the Board of Education was expanded from five to six members;

(6) each Board member would be elected at large, by majority vote, for one of two numbered posts created in each of the three wards, with runoff procedures identical to those applicable to City Commission elections;

(7) Board members would be required to reside in the wards from which they were elected;

(8) the terms of the two members from each ward would be staggered.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires preclearance by the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of any change in a

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 161]

"standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting," 42 U.S.C. 1973c, made after November 1, 1964, by jurisdictions that fall within the coverage formula set forth in 4 (b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973b (b). In 1965, the Attorney General designated Georgia a covered jurisdiction under the Act, 30 Fed. Reg. 9897, and the municipalities of that State must therefore comply with the preclearance procedure, United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Ala., 435 U.S. 110 (1978).

It is not disputed that the 1966 changes in Rome's electoral system were within the purview of the Act. E. g., Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969). Nonetheless, the city failed to seek preclearance for them. In addition, the city did not seek preclearance for 60 annexations made between November 1, 1964, and February 10, 1975, even though required to do so because an annexation constitutes a change in a "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" under the Act, Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379 (1971).

In June 1974, the city did submit one annexation to the Attorney General for preclearance. The Attorney General discovered that other annexations had occurred, and, in response to his inquiries, the city submitted all the annexations and the 1966 electoral changes for preclearance. The Attorney General declined to preclear the provisions for majority vote, numbered posts, and staggered terms for City Commission and Board of Education elections, as well as the residency requirement for Board elections. He concluded that in a city such as Rome, in which the population is predominately white and racial bloc voting has been common, these electoral changes would deprive Negro voters of the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The Attorney General also refused to preclear 13 of the 60 annexations in question. He found that the disapproved annexations either contained predominately white populations of significant size

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 162]

or were near predominately white areas and were zoned for residential subdivision development. Considering these factors in light of Rome's at-large electoral scheme and history of racial bloc voting, he determined that the city had not carried its burden of proving that the annexations would not dilute the Negro vote.

In response to the city's motion for reconsideration, the Attorney General agreed to clear the 13 annexations for School Board elections. He reasoned that his disapproval of the 1966 voting changes had resurrected the pre-existing electoral scheme and that the revivified scheme passed muster under the Act. At the same time, he refused to clear the annexations for City Commission elections because, in his view, the residency requirement for City Commission contained in the pre-existing electoral procedures could have a discriminatory effect.

The city and two of its officials then filed this action, seeking relief from the Act based on a variety of claims. A three-judge court, convened pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973b (a) and 1973c, rejected the city's arguments and granted summary judgment for the defendants. 472 F. Supp. 221 (DC 1979). We noted probable jurisdiction, 443 U.S. 914 (1979), and now affirm.

II

We must first address the appellants' assertion that, for two reasons, this Court may avoid reaching the merits of this action.

A

The appellants contend that the city may exempt itself from the coverage of the Act. To evaluate this argument, we must examine the provisions of the Act in some detail.

Section 5 of the Act requires that a covered jurisdiction that wishes to enact any "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 163]

November 1, 1964," must seek preclearance from the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c.[Footnote 1]

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 164]

Section 4 (a) of the Act, 79 Stat. 438, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973b (a),[Footnote 2] provides that the preclearance requirement of

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 165]

5 is applicable to "any State" that the Attorney General has determined qualifies under the coverage formula of 4 (b),

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 166]

42 U.S.C. 1973b (b),[Footnote 3] and to "any political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit." As we have noted, the city of Rome comes within the preclearance requirement because it is a political unit in a covered jurisdiction, the State of Georgia. United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Ala., 435 U.S. 110 (1978).

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 167]

Section 4 (a) also provides, however, a procedure for exemption from the Act. This so-called "bailout" provision allows a covered jurisdiction to escape the preclearance requirement of 5 by bringing a declaratory judgment action before a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and proving that no "test or device"[Footnote 4] has been used in the jurisdiction "during the seventeen years preceding the filing of the action for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." The District Court refused to allow the city to "bail out" of the Act's coverage, holding that the political units of a covered jurisdiction cannot independently bring a 4 (a) bailout action. We agree.

In the terms of 4 (a), the issue turns on whether the city is, for bailout purposes, either a "State with respect to which the determinations have been made under the third sentence of subsection (b) of this section" or a "political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit," the "determinations" in each instance being the Attorney General's decision whether the jurisdiction falls within the coverage formula of 4 (b). On the face of the statute, the city fails to meet the definition for either term, since the coverage formula of 4 (b) has never been applied to it. Rather, the city comes within the Act because it is part of a covered State. Under the plain language of the statute, then, it appears that any bailout action to exempt the city must be filed by, and seek to exempt all of, the State of Georgia.

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 168]

The appellants seek to avoid this conclusion by relying on our decision in United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Ala., supra. That decision, however, did not even discuss the bailout process. In Sheffield, the Court held that when the Attorney General determines that a State falls within the coverage formula of 4 (b), any political unit of the State must preclear new voting procedures under 5 regardless of whether the unit registers voters and therefore would otherwise come within the Act as a "political subdivision."[Footnote 5] In so holding, the Court necessarily determined that the scope of 4 (a) and 5 is "geographic" or "territorial," 435 U.S., at 120, 126, and thus that, when an entire State is covered, it is irrelevant whether political units of it might otherwise come under 5 as "political subdivisions." 435 U.S., at 126-129.

Sheffield, then, did not hold that cities such as Rome are "political subdivisions" under 4 and 5. Thus, our decision in that case is in no way inconsistent with our conclusion that, under the express statutory language, the city is not a "political subdivision" for purposes of 4 (a) "bailout."

Nor did Sheffield suggest that a municipality in a covered State is itself a "State" for purposes of the 4 (a) exemption procedure. Sheffield held that, based on the structure and purposes of the Act, the legislative history, and the contemporaneous interpretation of the Attorney General, the ambiguities of 4 (a) and 5 should be resolved by holding that 5's preclearance requirement for electoral changes by a covered "State" reached all such changes made by political units in that State. See 435 U.S., at 117-118. By contrast, in this

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 169]

case the legislative history precludes any argument that 4 (a)'s bailout procedure, made available to a covered "State," was also implicitly made available to political units in the State. The House Committee Report stated:

"This opportunity to obtain exemption is afforded only to those States or to those subdivisions as to which the formula has been determined to apply as a separate unit; subdivisions within a State which is covered by the formula are not afforded the opportunity for separate exemption." H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1965).

The Senate Committee's majority Report is to the same effect:

"We are also of the view that an entire State covered by the test and device prohibition of section 4 must be able to lift the prohibition if any part of it is to be relieved from the requirements of section 4." S. Rep. No. 162, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, p. 16 (1965).

See also id., at 21. Bound by this unambiguous congressional intent, we hold that the city of Rome may not use the bailout procedure of 4 (a).[Footnote 6]

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 170]

B

The appellants next argue that its electoral changes have been precleared because of allegedly tardy action by the Attorney General. On May 21, 1976, the city asked the Attorney General to reconsider his refusal to preclear the electoral changes and the 13 annexations. On July 13, 1976, upon its own accord, the city submitted two additional affidavits. The Attorney General denied the motion to reconsider on August 12, 1976.

Section 5 of the Act provides that the Attorney General must interpose objections to original submissions within 60 days of their filing.[Footnote 7] If the Attorney General fails to make a timely objection, the voting practices submitted become fully enforceable. By regulation, the Attorney General has provided that requests for reconsideration shall also be decided within 60 days of their receipt. 28 CFR 51.3 (d) (1979).[Footnote 8] If in the present case the 60-day period for reconsideration is computed as running continuously from May 24, the date of the initial submission of the reconsideration motion, the period expired before the Attorney General made his August 12 response. In contrast, if the period is measured from July 14,

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 171]

the date the city supplemented its request, the Attorney General's response was timely.

The timing provisions of both the Act and the regulations are silent on the effect of supplements to requests for reconsideration. We agree with the Attorney General that the purposes of the Act and its implementing regulations would be furthered if the 60-day period provided by 28 CFR 51.3 (d) were interpreted to commence anew when additional information is supplied by the submitting jurisdiction on its own accord.

The logic of Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973), indicates that the Government's approach fully comports with the Act and regulations. In that case, the Court examined a regulation of the Attorney General, 28 CFR 51.18 (a), that provided that 5's mandatory 60-day period for consideration of original submissions is tolled whenever the Attorney General finds it necessary to request additional information from the submitting jurisdiction. Under the regulation, the 60-day period commences anew when the jurisdiction in question furnishes the requested information to the Attorney General. The Court upheld the regulation, holding that it was "wholly reasonable and consistent with the Act." 411 U.S., at 541.

Georgia v. United States stands for the proposition that the purposes of the Act are furthered if, once all information relevant to a submission is placed before the Attorney General, the Attorney General is accorded the full 60-day period provided by law in which to make his "difficult and complex" decision, id., at 540. It follows, then, that when the submitting jurisdiction deems its initial submission on a reconsideration motion to be inadequate and decides to supplement it, as the city of Rome did in the present case, the 60-day period under 28 CFR 51.3 (d) is commenced anew. A contrary ruling would mean that the Attorney General would, in some cases, be unable to give adequate consideration to materials submitted in piecemeal fashion. In such circumstances, the

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 172]

Attorney General might be able to respond only by denying the reconsideration motion. Such a result would run counter to the purposes of the Act and regulations, since it would penalize submitting jurisdictions that have legitimate reasons to file supplementary materials.[Footnote 9]

III

The appellants raise five issues of law in support of their contention that the Act may not properly be applied to the electoral changes and annexations disapproved by the Attorney General.

A

The District Court found that the disapproved electoral changes and annexations had not been made for any discriminatory purpose, but did have a discriminatory effect. The appellants argue that 5 of the Act may not be read as prohibiting voting practices that have only a discriminatory effect. The appellants do not dispute that the plain language of 5 commands that the Attorney General may clear a practice only if it "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." 42 U.S.C. 1973c (emphasis added). By describing the elements of discriminatory purpose and effect in the conjunctive, Congress plainly intended that a voting practice not be precleared unless both discriminatory purpose and effect are absent. Our decisions have consistently interpreted 5 in this fashion. Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976); City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358, 372 (1975); Georgia v. United States, supra, at 538; Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 387, 388 (1971). Furthermore, Congress recognized that the Act prohibited both discriminatory purpose and effect when, in 1975, it extended

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 173]

the Act for another seven years. S. Rep. No. 94-295, pp. 15-16 (1975) (hereinafter S. Rep.); H. R. Rep. No. 94-196, pp. 8-9 (1975) (hereinafter H. R. Rep.).

The appellants urge that we abandon this settled interpretation because in their view 5, to the extent that it prohibits voting changes that have only a discriminatory effect, is unconstitutional. Because the statutory meaning and congressional intent are plain, however, we are required to reject the appellants' suggestion that we engage in a saving construction and avoid the constitutional issues they raise. See, e. g., NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490, 499-501 (1979); id., at 508-511 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). Instead, we now turn to their constitutional contentions.

B

Congress passed the Act under the authority accorded it by the Fifteenth Amendment.[Footnote 10] The appellants contend that the Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' power to enforce that Amendment. They claim that 1 of the Amendment prohibits only purposeful racial discrimination in voting, and that in enforcing that provision pursuant to 2, Congress may not prohibit voting practices lacking discriminatory intent even if they are discriminatory in effect. We hold that, even if 1 of the Amendment prohibits only purposeful discrimination,[Footnote 11] the prior decisions of this Court foreclose any argument that Congress may not, pursuant to 2, outlaw voting practices that are discriminatory in effect.

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 174]

The appellants are asking us to do nothing less than overrule our decision in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, (1966), in which we upheld the constitutionality of the Act. The Court in that case observed that, after making an extensive investigation, Congress had determined that its earlier attempts to remedy the "insidious and pervasive evil" of racial discrimination in voting had failed because of "unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution" in some parts of this country. Id., at 309. Case-by-case adjudication had proved too ponderous a method to remedy voting discrimination, and, when it had produced favorable results, affected jurisdictions often "merely switched to discriminatory devices not covered by the federal decrees." Id., at 314. In response to its determination that "sterner and more elaborate measures" were necessary, id., at 309, Congress adopted the Act, a "complex scheme of stringent remedies aimed at areas where voting discrimination has been most flagrant," id., at 315.

The Court then turned to the question whether the Fifteenth Amendment empowered Congress to impose the rigors of the Act upon the covered jurisdictions. The Court examined the interplay between the judicial remedy created by 1 of the Amendment and the legislative authority conferred by 2:

"By adding this authorization [in 2], the Framers indicated that Congress was to be chiefly responsible for implementing the rights created in 1. `It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation. Some legislation is contemplated to make the [Civil War] amendments fully effective.' Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 345. Accordingly, in addition to the courts, Congress has full remedial powers to effectuate the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting." 383 U.S., at 325-326 (emphasis in original).

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 175]

Congress' authority under 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, we held, was no less broad than its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421 (1819). This authority, as applied by longstanding precedent to congressional enforcement of the Civil War Amendments, is defined in these terms:

"`Whatever legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects the [Civil War] amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.' Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. [339,] 345-346." South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 327.

Applying this standard, the Court held that the coverage formula of 4 (b), the ban on the use of literacy tests and related devices, the requirement that new voting rules must be precleared and must lack both discriminatory purpose and effect, and the use of federal examiners were all appropriate methods for Congress to use to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. 383 U.S., at 329-337.

The Court's treatment in South Carolina v. Katzenbach of the Act's ban on literacy tests demonstrates that, under the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress may prohibit voting practices that have only a discriminatory effect. The Court had earlier held in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, (1959), that the use of a literacy test that was fair on its face and was not employed in a discriminatory fashion did not violate 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment. In upholding the Act's per se ban on such tests in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Court found no reason to overrule Lassiter. Instead, the Court recognized that the prohibition was an appropriate method of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 176]

because for many years most of the covered jurisdictions had imposed such tests to effect voting discrimination and the continued use of even nondiscriminatory, fairly administered literacy tests would "freeze the effect" of past discrimination by allowing white illiterates to remain on the voting rolls while excluding illiterate Negroes. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 334. This holding makes clear that Congress may, under the authority of 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibit state action that, though in itself not violative of 1, perpetuates the effects of past discrimination.

Other decisions of this Court also recognize Congress' broad power to enforce the Civil War Amendments. In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Court held that legislation enacted under authority of 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment[Footnote 12] would be upheld so long as the Court could find that the enactment "`is plainly adapted to [the] end'" of enforcing the Equal Protection Clause and "is not prohibited by but is consistent with `the letter and spirit of the constitution,'" regardless of whether the practices outlawed by Congress in themselves violated the Equal Protection Clause. 384 U.S., at 651 (quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, at 421). The Court stated that, "[c]orrectly viewed, 5 is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment." 384 U.S., at 651. Four years later, in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Court unanimously upheld a provision of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, Pub. L. 91-285, 84 Stat. 314, imposing a 5-year nationwide ban on literacy tests and similar requirements for registering to vote in state and federal elections. The Court concluded that Congress could rationally have

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 177]

determined that these provisions were appropriate methods of attacking the perpetuation of earlier, purposeful racial discrimination, regardless of whether the practices they prohibited were discriminatory only in effect. See 400 U.S., at 132-133 (opinion of Black, J.); id., at 144-147 (opinion of Douglas, J.); id., at 216-217 (opinion of Harlan, J.); id., at 231-236 (opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.); id., at 282-284 (opinion of STEWART, J., joined by BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J.).[Footnote 13]

It is clear, then, that under 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment Congress may prohibit practices that in and of themselves do not violate 1 of the Amendment, so long as the prohibitions attacking racial discrimination in voting are "appropriate," as that term is defined in McCulloch v. Maryland and Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880). In the present case, we hold that the Act's ban on electoral changes that are discriminatory in effect is an appropriate method of promoting the purposes of the Fifteenth Amendment, even if it is assumed that 1 of the Amendment prohibits only intentional discrimination in voting. Congress could rationally have concluded that, because electoral changes by jurisdictions with a demonstrable history of intentional racial discrimination in voting create the risk of purposeful discrimination,[Footnote 14] it was proper to prohibit changes that have a discriminatory impact. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 335; Oregon v. Mitchell,

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 178]

supra, at 216 (opinion of Harlan, J.). We find no reason, then, to disturb Congress' considered judgment that banning electoral changes that have a discriminatory impact is an effective method of preventing States from "`undo[ing] or defeat[ing] the rights recently won' by Negroes." Beer v. United States, 425 U.S., at 140 (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 91-397, p. 8 (1969)).

C

The appellants next assert that, even if the Fifteenth Amendment authorized Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act, that legislation violates principles of federalism articulated in National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976). This contention necessarily supposes that National League of Cities signifies a retreat from our decision in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, where we rejected the argument that the Act "exceed[s] the powers of Congress and encroach[es] on an area reserved to the States by the Constitution," 383 U.S., at 323, and determined that, "[a]s against the reserved powers of the States, Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting," id., at 324. To the contrary, we find no inconsistency between these decisions.

In National League of Cities, the Court held that federal legislation regulating minimum wages and hours could not constitutionally be extended to employees of state and local governments. The Court determined that the Commerce Clause did not provide Congress the authority to enact legislation "directly displac[ing] the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions," 426 U.S., at 852, which, it held, included employer-employee relationships in programs traditionally conducted by States, id., at 851-852.

The decision in National League of Cities was based solely on an assessment of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and we explicitly reserved the question "whether different results might obtain if Congress seeks to affect integral

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 179]

operations of state governments by exercising authority granted it under other sections of the Constitution such as . . . 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id., at 852, n. 17. The answer to this question came four days later in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976). That case presented the issue whether, in spite of the Eleventh Amendment, Congress had the authority to bring the States as employers within the coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and to provide that successful plaintiffs could recover retroactive monetary relief. The Court held that this extension of Title VII was an appropriate method of enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment:

"[W]e think that the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, . . . are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In that section Congress is expressly granted authority to enforce `by appropriate legislation' the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which themselves embody significant limitations on state authority. When Congress acts pursuant to 5, not only is it exercising legislative authority that is plenary within the terms of the constitutional grant, it is exercising that authority under one section of a constitutional Amendment whose other sections by their own terms embody limitations on state authority." Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, supra, at 456.

We agree with the court below that Fitzpatrick stands for the proposition that principles of federalism that might otherwise be an obstacle to congressional authority are necessarily overridden by the power to enforce the Civil War Amendments "by appropriate legislation." Those Amendments were specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty. Applying this principle, we hold that Congress had the authority to regulate state and local voting through the provisions of the Voting Rights

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 180]

Act.[Footnote 15] National League of Cities, then, provides no reason to depart from our decision in South Carolina v. Katzenbach that "the Fifteenth Amendment supersedes contrary exertions of state power," 383 U.S., at 325, and that the Act is "an appropriate means for carrying out Congress' constitutional responsibilities," id., at 308.[Footnote 16]

D

The appellants contend in the alternative that, even if the Act and its preclearance requirement were appropriate means of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment in 1965, they had outlived their usefulness by 1975, when Congress extended the Act for another seven years. We decline this invitation to overrule Congress' judgment that the 1975 extension was warranted.

In considering the 1975 extension, Congress acknowledged that, largely as a result of the Act, Negro voter registration had improved dramatically since 1965. H. R. Rep., at 6; S. Rep., at 13. Congress determined, however, that "a bleaker side of the picture yet exists." H. R. Rep., at 7; S. Rep., at 13. Significant disparity persisted between the percentages of whites and Negroes registered in at least several of the covered jurisdictions. In addition, though the number of Negro elected officials had increased since 1965, most held only relatively minor positions, none held statewide office, and

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 181]

their number in the state legislatures fell far short of being representative of the number of Negroes residing in the covered jurisdictions. Congress concluded that, because minority political progress under the Act, though "undeniable," had been "modest and spotty," extension of the Act was warranted. H. R. Rep., at 7-11; S. Rep., at 11-19.

Congress gave careful consideration to the propriety of readopting 5's preclearance requirement. It first noted that "[i]n recent years the importance of this provision has become widely recognized as a means of promoting and preserving minority political gains in covered jurisdictions." H. R. Rep., at 8; S. Rep., at 15. After examining information on the number and types of submissions made by covered jurisdictions and the number and nature of objections interposed by the Attorney General, Congress not only determined that 5 should be extended for another seven years, it gave that provision this ringing endorsement:

"The recent objections entered by the Attorney General . . . to Section 5 submissions clearly bespeak the continuing need for this preclearance mechanism. As registration and voting of minority citizens increases [sic], other measures may be resorted to which would dilute increasing minority voting strength.

. . . . .

"The Committee is convinced that it is largely Section 5 which has contributed to the gains thus far achieved in minority political participation, and it is likewise Sect[i]on 5 which serves to insure that that progress not be destroyed through new procedures and techniques. Now is not the time to remove those preclearance protections from such limited and fragile success." H. R. Rep., at 10-11.

See also S. Rep., at 15-19.

It must not be forgotten that in 1965, 95 years after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 182]

to all citizens regardless of race or color, Congress found that racial discrimination in voting was an "insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 309. In adopting the Voting Rights Act, Congress sought to remedy this century of obstruction by shifting "the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims." Id., at 328. Ten years later, Congress found that a 7-year extension of the Act was necessary to preserve the "limited and fragile" achievements of the Act and to promote further amelioration of voting discrimination. When viewed in this light, Congress' considered determination that at least another 7 years of statutory remedies were necessary to counter the perpetuation of 95 years of pervasive voting discrimination is both unsurprising and unassailable. The extension of the Act, then, was plainly a constitutional method of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment.

E

As their final constitutional challenge to the Act,[Footnote 17] the individual appellants argue that, because no elections have been held in Rome since 1974, their First, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment rights as private citizens of the city have been abridged. In blaming the Act for this result, these appellants identify the wrong culprit. The Act does not restrict private political expression or prevent a covered jurisdiction from holding elections; rather, it simply provides that elections may be held either under electoral rules in effect on November 1, 1964, or under rules adopted since that time that have been properly precleared. When the Attorney General refused to preclear the city's electoral changes, the city had the authority to conduct elections under its electoral scheme in effect on

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 183]

November 1, 1964. Indeed, the Attorney General offered to preclear any technical amendments to the city charter necessary to permit elections under the pre-existing scheme or a modification of that scheme consistent with the Act. In these circumstances, the city's failure to hold elections can only be attributed to its own officials, and not to the operation of the Act.

IV

Now that we have reaffirmed our holdings in South Carolina v. Katzenbach that the Act is "an appropriate means for carrying out Congress' constitutional responsibilities" and is "consonant with all . . . provisions of the Constitution," 383 U.S., at 308, we must address the appellants' contentions that the 1966 electoral changes and the annexations disapproved by the Attorney General do not, in fact, have a discriminatory effect. We are mindful that the District Court's findings of fact must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous.

A

We conclude that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the city had failed to prove that the 1966 electoral changes would not dilute the effectiveness of the Negro vote in Rome.[Footnote 18] The District Court determined that racial bloc voting existed in Rome. It found that the electoral changes from plurality-win to majority-win elections, numbered posts, and staggered terms, when combined with the presence of racial bloc voting and Rome's majority white population and at-large electoral system, would dilute Negro voting strength. The District Court recognized that, under the pre-existing plurality-win system, a Negro candidate would have a fair opportunity to be elected by a plurality of the vote

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 184]

if white citizens split their votes among several white candidates and Negroes engage in "single-shot voting" in his favor.[Footnote 19] The 1966 change to the majority vote/runoff election scheme significantly decreased the opportunity for such a Negro candidate since, "even if he gained a plurality of votes in the general election, [he] would still have to face the runner-up white candidate in a head-to-head runoff election in which, given bloc voting by race and a white majority, [he] would be at a severe disadvantage." 472 F. Supp., at 244 (footnotes omitted).[Footnote 20]

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 185]

The District Court's further conclusion that the city had failed to prove that the numbered posts, staggered terms, and Board of Education residency provisions would not have the effect of forcing head-to-head contests between Negroes and whites and depriving Negroes of the opportunity to elect a candidate by single-shot voting, id., at 245, is likewise not clearly erroneous.[Footnote 21] The District Court's holdings regarding all of the 1966 electoral changes are consistent with our statement in Beer v. United States, 425 U.S., at 141, that "the purpose of 5 has always been to insure that no voting procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral [process]."

B

The District Court also found that the city had failed to meet its burden of proving that the 13 disapproved annexations did not dilute the Negro vote in Rome. The

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 186]

city's argument that this finding is clearly erroneous is severely undermined by the fact that it failed to present any evidence shedding meaningful light on how the annexations affected the vote of Rome's Negro community.

Because Rome's failure to preclear any of these annexations caused a delay in federal review and placed the annexations before the District Court as a group, the court was correct in concluding that the cumulative effect of the 13 annexations must be examined from the perspective of the most current available population data. Unfortunately, the population data offered by the city was quite uninformative. The city did not present evidence on the current general population and voting-age population of Rome, much less a breakdown of each population category by race.[Footnote 22] Nor does the record reflect current information regarding the city's registered voters. The record does indicate the number of Negro and white registered voters in the city as of 1975, but it is unclear whether these figures included persons residing in the annexed areas in dispute.

Certain facts are clear, however. In February 1978, the most recent date for which any population data were compiled, 2,582 whites and only 52 Negroes resided in the disapproved annexed areas. Of these persons, 1,797 whites and only 24

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 187]

Negroes were of voting age, and 823 whites and only 9 Negroes were registered voters. We must assume that these persons moved to the annexed areas from outside the city, rather than from within the preannexation boundaries of the city, since the city, which bore the burden of proof, presented no evidence to the contrary.

The District Court properly concluded that these annexations must be scrutinized under the Voting Rights Act. See Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S., at 388-390. By substantially enlarging the city's number of white eligible voters without creating a corresponding increase in the number of Negroes, the annexations reduced the importance of the votes of Negro citizens who resided within the preannexation boundaries of the city. In these circumstances, the city bore the burden of proving that its electoral system "fairly reflects the strength of the Negro community as it exists after the annexation[s]." City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S., at 371. The District Court's determination that the city failed to meet this burden of proof for City Commission elections was based on the presence of three vote-dilutive factors: the at-large electoral system, the residency requirement for officeholders, and the high degree of racial bloc voting. Particularly in light of the inadequate evidence introduced by the city, this determination cannot be considered to be clearly erroneous.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

FootnotesFootnote 1 In its entirety, 5, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 1973c, provides:

"Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b (a) of this title based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 1973b (b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b (a) of this title based upon determinations made under the second sentence of section 1973b (b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1968, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b (a) of this title based upon determinations made under the third sentence of section 1973b (b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1972, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure 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, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f) (2) of this title, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 164]

will be made, nor the Attorney General's failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. In the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that no objection will be made within the sixty-day period following receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the right to re-examine the submission if additional information comes to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period which would otherwise require objection in accordance with this section. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court."

Footnote 2 In its entirety, 4 (a), as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 1973b (a), provides:

"To assure that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is not denied or abridged on account of race or color, no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or device in any State with respect to which the determinations have been made under the first two sentences of subsection (b) of this section or in any political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit, unless the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action for a declaratory judgment brought by such State or subdivision against the United States has determined that no such test or device has been used during the seventeen years preceding the filing of the action for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color: Provided, That no such declaratory judgment shall issue with respect to any plaintiff for a period of seventeen years after the entry of a final judgment of any court of the United States, other than the denial of a declaratory judgment under this section, whether entered prior to or after August 6, 1965, determining that denials or abridgments of the right to vote on account of race or color through the use of such tests or devices have occurred anywhere in the territory of such plaintiff. No citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or device in any State with respect to which the determinations have been made under the third sentence of subsection (b) of this section or in any political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit, unless

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 165]

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action for a declaratory judgment brought by such State or subdivision against the United States has determined that no such test or device has been used during the ten years preceding the filing of the action for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in subsection (f) (2) of this section: Provided, That no such declaratory judgment shall issue with respect to any plaintiff for a period of ten years after the entry of a final judgment of any court of the United States, other than the denial of a declaratory judgment under this section, whether entered prior to or after the enactment of this paragraph, determining that denials or abridgments of the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in subsection (f) (2) of this section through the use of tests or devices have occurred anywhere in the territory of such plaintiff.

"An action pursuant to this subsection shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. The court shall retain jurisdiction of any action pursuant to this subsection for five years after judgment and shall reopen the action upon motion of the Attorney General alleging that a test or device has been used for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in subsection (f) (2) of this section.

"If the Attorney General determines that he has no reason to believe that any such test or device has been used during the seventeen years preceding the filing of an action under the first sentence of this subsection for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in subsection (f) (2) of this section, he shall consent to the entry of such judgment.

"If the Attorney General determines that he has no reason to believe that any such test or device has been used during the ten years preceding the filing of an action under the second sentence of this subsection for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in subsection (f) (2) of this section, he shall consent to the entry of such judgment."

Footnote 3 In its entirety, 4 (b), as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 1973b (b), provides:

"The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a State which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 per centum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964. On and after August 6, 1970, in addition to any State or political subdivision of a State determined to be subject to subsection (a) of this section pursuant to the previous sentence, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply in any State or any political subdivision of a State which (i) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1968, any test or device, and with respect to which (ii) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 per centum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1968, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1968. On and after August 6, 1975, in addition to any State or political subdivision of a State determined to be subject to subsection (a) of this section pursuant to the previous two sentences, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply in any State or any political subdivision of a State which (i) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1972, any test or device, and with respect to which (ii) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 per centum of the citizens of voting age were registered on November 1, 1972, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons voted in the Presidential election of November 1972.

"A determination or certification of the Attorney General or of the Director of the Census under this section or under section 1973d or 1973k of this title shall not be reviewable in any court and shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register."

Footnote 4 Section 4 (c) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 1973b (c), provides:

"The phrase `test or device' shall mean any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class."

Footnote 5 Section 14 (c) (2) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 1973l (c) (2), provides:

"The term `political subdivision' shall mean any county or parish, except that where registration for voting is not conducted under the supervision of a county or parish, the term shall include any other subdivision of a State which conducts registration for voting."

Footnote 6 We also reject the appellants' argument that the majority vote, runoff election, and numbered posts provisions of the city's charter have already been precleared by the Attorney General because in 1968 the State of Georgia submitted, and the Attorney General precleared, a comprehensive Municipal Election Code that is now Title 34A of the Code of Georgia. Both the relevant regulation, 28 CFR 51.10 (1979), and the decisions of this Court require that the jurisdiction "in some unambiguous and recordable manner submit any legislation or regulation in question directly to the Attorney General with a request for his consideration pursuant to the Act," Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 571 (1969), and that the Attorney General be afforded an adequate opportunity to determine the purpose of the electoral changes and whether they will adversely affect minority voting in that jurisdiction, see United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Ala., 435 U.S. 110, 137-138 (1978). Under this standard, the State's 1968 submission cannot be viewed as a submission of the city's 1966 electoral changes, for, as the District

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 170]

Court noted, the State's submission informed the Attorney General only of "its decision to defer to local charters and ordinances regarding majority voting, runoff elections, and numbered posts," and "did not . . . submit in an `unambiguous and recordable manner' all municipal charter provisions, as written in 1968 or as amended thereafter, regarding these issues." 472 F. Supp. 221, 233 (DC 1979).

Footnote 7 See n. 1, supra.

Footnote 8 This regulation provides:

"When the Attorney General objects to a submitted change affecting voting, and the submitting authority seeking reconsideration of the objection brings additional information to the attention of the Attorney General, the Attorney General shall decide within 60 days of receipt of a request for reconsideration (provided that he shall have at least 15 days following a conference held at the submitting authority's request) whether to withdraw or to continue his objection."

Footnote 9 Because of our resolution of this issue, we need not address the Government's contention that the 60-day period provided by 28 CFR 51.3 (d) is permissive rather than mandatory.

Footnote 10 The Amendment provides:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

"Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Footnote 11 For purposes of this case it is unnecessary to examine the various approaches expressed by the Members of the Court in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, decided this day.

Footnote 12 Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[t]he Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Footnote 13 There was no opinion for the Court in this case. Mr. Justice Douglas expressed the view that the legislation in question was authorized under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 400 U.S., at 144-147. The other eight Members of the Court believed that the Congress had permissibly acted within the authority provided it by 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. 400 U.S., at 132-133 (opinion of Black, J.); id., at 216 (opinion of Harlan, J.); id., at 232-234 (opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.); id., at 283 (opinion of STEWART, J., joined by BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J.).

Footnote 14 See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 335, and n. 47 (1966) (citing H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 10-11 (1965); S. Rep. No. 162, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, pp. 8, 12 (1965)).

Footnote 15 Indeed, Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, (1976), strongly suggested this result by citing South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), as one of several cases sanctioning "intrusions by Congress, acting under the Civil War Amendments, into the judicial, executive, and legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States. The legislation considered in each case was grounded on the expansion of Congress' powers - with the corresponding diminution of state sovereignty - found to be intended by the Framers and made part of the Constitution upon the States' ratification of those Amendments, a phenomenon aptly described as a `carv[ing] out' in Ex parte Virginia, [100 U.S. 339, 346 (1880)]." Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, supra, at 455-456.

Footnote 16 See also Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 646-647 (1966).

Footnote 17 We do not reach the merits of the appellants' argument that the Act violates the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, 4, since that issue is not justiciable. See, e. g., Baker v. Carr, (1962).

Footnote 18 Under 5, the city bears the burden of proving lack of discriminatory purpose and effect. Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 140-141 (1976); Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 538 (1973); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 335.

Footnote 19 Single-shot voting has been described as follows:

"Consider [a] town of 600 whites and 400 blacks with an at-large election to choose four council members. Each voter is able to cast four votes. Suppose there are eight white candidates, with the votes of the whites split among them approximately equally, and one black candidate, with all the blacks voting for him and no one else. The result is that each white candidate receives about 300 votes and the black candidate receives 400 votes. The black has probably won a seat. This technique is called single-shot voting. Single-shot voting enables a minority group to win some at-large seats if it concentrates its vote behind a limited number of candidates and if the vote of the majority is divided among a number of candidates." U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years After, pp. 206-207 (1975).

Footnote 20 The District Court found that Rome's Negro citizens believed that a Negro will never be elected as long as the city's present electoral system remains in effect. 472 F. Supp., at 226. Only four Negroes have ever sought elective office in Rome, and none of them was elected. The campaign of the Reverend Clyde Hill, who made the strongest showing of the four, indicates both the presence of racial bloc voting in the city and the dilutive effect of the majority vote/runoff election scheme adopted in 1966. The city's elections were operated under that scheme when Rev. Hill ran for the Board of Education in 1970. With strong support from the Negro community, Rev. Hill ran against three white opponents and received 921 votes in the general election, while his opponents received 909, 407, and 143 votes, respectively. Rev. Hill, then, would have been elected under the pre-1966 plurality-win voting scheme. Under the majority-win/runoff election provisions adopted in 1966, however, a runoff election was held, and the white candidate who was the runner-up in the general election defeated Rev. Hill by a vote of 1409-1142.

Footnote 21 In so holding, the District Court relied on this analysis by the United States Commission on Civil Rights:

"`There are a number of voting rules which have the effect of frustrating single-shot voting. . . . [I]nstead of having one race for four positions, there could be four races, each for only one position. Thus for post no. 1 there might be one black candidate and one white, with the white winning. The situation would be the same for each post, or seat - a black candidate would always face a white in a head-to-head contest and would not be able to win. There would be no opportunity for single-shot voting. A black still might win if there were more than one white candidate for a post, but this possibility would be eliminated if there was also a majority requirement.

"`[Second,] each council member might be required to live in a separate district but with voting still at large. This - just like numbered posts - separates one contest into a number of individual contests.

"`[Third,] the terms of council members might be staggered. If each member has a 4-year term and one member is elected each year, then the opportunity for single-shot voting will never arise.'" 472 F. Supp., at 244, n. 95 (quoting U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, supra n. 19, at 207-208).

Footnote 22 In City of Richmond v. United States, (1975), and City of Petersburg v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1021 (DC 1972), summarily aff'd, 410 U.S. 962 (1973), evidence of the racial composition of the general population was used to assess the impact of annexations on the importance of the Negro vote in the community. This information, when coupled with data on the racial composition of the community's voting-age population, provides more probative evidence in such cases than does voter registration data, which may perpetuate the effects of prior discrimination in the registration of voters, Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108, 115, n. 7 (1971); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 92-93 (1966), or reflect a belief among the Negro population that it cannot elect a candidate of its choice, cf. n. 20, supra. Current voting-age population data are probative because they indicate the electoral potential of the minority community.

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion but write separately to state my understanding of the effect of the holding in Part IV-B. The Court there affirms, as not clearly erroneous, the District Court's determination that the city of Rome failed to meet its burden of disproving that the 13 disputed annexation had a discriminatory effect. That issue, for me, is close, but I accept the District Court's ruling. The holding, however,

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 188]

does seem to have the anomalous result of leaving the voters residing in those annexed areas within the jurisdiction of Rome's Board of Education, but outside the jurisdiction of its City Commission.* As the appellees point out, however, Brief for Appellees 40-42, affirmance of the District Court's holding does not preclude the city from altering this anomaly.

It seems significant to me that the District Court adopted the remedial device of conditioning its approval of the annexations on Rome's abandonment of the residency requirement for City Commission elections. It thus denied the city's motion for approval of the annexations "without prejudice to renewal . . . upon the undertaking of suitable action consistent with the views expressed herein." 472 F. Supp. 221, 249 (DC 1979). This remedial device, conditioning the approval of annexations on the elimination of pre-existing discriminatory aspects of a city's electoral system, was developed in City of Petersburg v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1021 (DC 1972), summarily aff'd, 410 U.S. 962 (1973), and expressly approved by this Court in City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358, 369-371 (1975).

I entertain some doubt about the District Court's apparent conclusion that the residency requirement for Commission elections, standing alone, would render the postannexation electoral system of Rome one that did not "fairly recogniz[e] the minority's political potential," within the meaning of City of Richmond. Id., at 378. The discriminatory effect of a residency requirement in an at-large election system results from its necessary separation of one contest into a number of individual contests, thereby frustrating minority efforts to utilize effectively single-shot voting. See ante, at 185, n. 21.

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 189]

And in a city the size of Rome, one might reasonably conclude that a requirement that one Commission member reside in each of nine wards would have such an effect. The District Court failed to analyze, however, the impact of the Attorney General's preclearance of Rome's reduction of the number of wards in the city from nine to three. The potential for effective single-shot voting would not be frustrated by a requirement that three commissioners be elected from each of three wards, so long as candidates were not required to run for a particular "numbered post" within each ward. Given the Attorney General's preclearance of the reduction of the number of wards from nine to three, the latter requirement is one that the District Court should have considered in determining whether the presence of a residency requirement would necessarily lead to the conclusion that Rome's postannexation electoral system is one that does not fairly recognize the minority's political potential.

I do not dissent from the affirmance of the District Court's holding with respect to the annexations, however, because the appellees have conceded that Rome need not abandon its residency requirement in order to keep the annexed areas within the jurisdiction of the City Commission. Appellees state:

"If the City wished to retain both a residency requirement and at-large elections, . . . it could couple its pre-1966 procedures with its subsequent shift to a system of electing three commissioners from each of three wards. (The Attorney General had not objected to the change from nine wards to three larger wards.) When candidates are running concurrently for three unnumbered positions in each of the three wards, without a majority-vote requirement, there can be no head-to-head contest, and single-shot voting by black voters would give them a chance to elect the candidate they supported." Brief for Appellees 41-42.

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 190]

Thus, on the understanding that the Attorney General would not object to the District Court's approval of the annexations insofar as they expand the jurisdiction of the City Commission, if the city either eliminates the residency requirement and returns to a nine ward system, or retains the residency requirement and the three-ward system that has been in effect since 1966, I join in Part IV-B of the Court's opinion.

[Footnote *] The Attorney General, in response to the city's motion for reconsideration of its submissions, agreed to preclear the 13 annexations for purposes of Board of Education elections. That decision was based solely on the fact that there was no residency requirement for Board of Education elections under Rome's pre-1966 electoral rules. See ante, at 160, 162.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring.

Although I join the Court's opinion, the dissenting opinions prompt me to emphasize two points that are crucial to my analysis of the case; both concern the statewide nature of the remedy Congress authorized when it enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The critical questions are: (1) whether, as a statutory matter, Congress has prescribed a statewide remedy that denies local political units within a covered State the right to "bail out" separately; and (2) if so, whether, as a constitutional matter, such statewide relief exceeds the enforcement powers of Congress. If, as I believe, Congress could properly impose a statewide remedy and in fact did so in the Voting Rights Act, then the fact that the city of Rome has been innocent of any wrongdoing for the last 17 years is irrelevant; indeed, we may assume that there has never been any racial discrimination practiced in the city of Rome. If racially discriminatory voting practices elsewhere in the State of Georgia were sufficiently pervasive to justify the statewide remedy Congress prescribed, that remedy may be applied to each and every political unit within the State, including the city of Rome.

I

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act imposes certain restrictions on covered States and their political subdivisions, as well as on political subdivisions in noncovered States that have been separately designated as covered by the Attorney General pursuant to 4 (b) of the Act. Section 4 (a) of the Act

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 191]

permits both States and separately designated political subdivisions in noncovered States to bail out of 5's restrictions by demonstrating that they have not engaged in racially discriminatory voting practices for a period of 17 years. In United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Ala., , the Court construed the word "State" as used in 4 (a) and 5 to include all political units within a State even though they did not satisfy the statutory definition of a "political subdivision,"[Footnote 1] and even though that definition had been added to the statute for the express purpose of limiting coverage.[Footnote 2]

My opinion that the Sheffield Court's construction of the Act was erroneous does not qualify the legal consequences of that holding. See Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U.S. 32, 47 (STEVENS, J., concurring).[Footnote 3] Nor does it prevent me from joining the Court's holding today that a political unit within a covered State is not entitled to bail out under 4 (a).[Footnote 4] For both the plain language of the statute

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 192]

and its legislative history unambiguously indicate that only covered States and separately designated political subdivisions in noncovered States are entitled to take advantage of that provision. See 4 (a) and H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1965), quoted ante, at 169. The political subdivisions of a covered State, while subject to 5's preclearance requirements, are not entitled to bail out in a piecemeal fashion; rather, they can only be relieved of their preclearance obligations if the entire State meets the conditions for a bailout.

Given the Court's decision in Sheffield that all political units in a covered State are to be treated for 5 purposes as though they were "political subdivisions" of that State, it follows that they should also be treated as such for purposes of 4 (a)'s bailout provisions. Moreover, even without the Sheffield decision, it would be illogical to deny separate bailout relief to larger political units such as counties - which are clearly "political subdivisions" as that term is defined in 14 (c) (2) - and to grant it to smaller units such as municipalities and school boards.

II

The second question is whether Congress has the power to prescribe a statewide remedy for discriminatory voting practices

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 193]

if it does not allow political units that can prove themselves innocent of discrimination to bail out of the statute's coverage. In Part III-B of its opinion, the Court explains why Congress, under the authority of 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, may prohibit voting practices that have a discriminatory effect in instances in which there is ample proof of a longstanding tradition of purposeful discrimination. I think it is equally clear that remedies for discriminatory practices that were widespread within a State may be applied to every governmental unit within the State even though some of those local units may have never engaged in purposeful discrimination themselves.[Footnote 5] In short, Congress has the constitutional power to regulate voting practices in Rome, so long as it has the power to regulate such practices in the entire State of Georgia. Since there is no claim that the entire State is entitled to relief from the federal restrictions, Rome's separate claim must fail.

I therefore join the Court's opinion.

Footnote 1 Section 14 (c) (2) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 1973l (c) (2), provides:

"The term `political subdivision' shall mean any county or parish, except that where registration for voting is not conducted under the supervision of a county or parish, the term shall include any other subdivision of a State which conducts registration for voting."

Footnote 2 See 435 U.S., at 142-143 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

Footnote 3 In any event, the city of Rome may be subject to 5 even under the reasoning of my dissent in Sheffield. As noted above, political subdivisions (i. e., counties and other subdivisions that register voters) in covered States are clearly subject to the restrictions of 5. In this case the city of Rome registered voters from 1964 to 1969, when the responsibility was transferred to Floyd County, see Stipulation No. 5, App. 58. Thus, from 1965 to 1969, the city was clearly covered by the Act. Because it did not preclear the transfer of voting registration to the county, ibid., it at least arguably remains a "political subdivision" for purposes of both 4 (a) and 5.

Footnote 4 It should be noted that there is some tension between the Court's language in Sheffield and its statement today that Sheffield did not "suggest that a municipality in a covered State is itself a `State' for purposes of

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 192]

the 4 (a) exemption procedure." See ante, at 168. Compare the latter statement with, e. g., 435 U.S., at 128, where the Court stated that it was "wholly logical to interpret `State . . . with respect to which' 4 (a) is in effect as referring to all political units within it." See also id., at 129, n. 17:

"Our Brother STEVENS' dissent misconceives the basis for the conclusion that 5's terms are susceptible of an interpretation under which Sheffield is covered. We believe that the term `State' can bear a meaning that includes all state actors within it and that, given the textual interrelationship between 5 and 4 (a) and the related purposes of the two provisions, such a reading is a natural one."

To the extent that the Court has disavowed the foregoing comments, I, of course, agree.

Footnote 5 The same principle applies to a court's exercise of its remedial powers. Thus, in an antitrust action, a remedy may be appropriate even though it "curtail[s] the exercise of liberties that the [defendant] might otherwise enjoy." National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 697. Similarly, in constitutional cases, a court may impose a remedy that requires more of the defendant than the Constitution itself would require in the absence of any history of wrongdoing. See, e. g., Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 40 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). The Court has recently applied this principle to school desegregation cases, holding that a systemwide remedy - as opposed to a remedy concentrating on specific instances of discrimination - may be justified by a prior history of pervasive, systemwide discrimination. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, ; Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL, dissenting.

Two years ago this Court held that the term "State" in 4 (a) of the Voting Rights Act includes all political subdivisions that control election processes, and that those subdivisions

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 194]

are subject to the requirement in 5 of the Act that federal authorities preclear changes in voting procedures. United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Ala., 435 U.S. 110 (1978) (Sheffield). Today the Court concludes that those subdivisions are not within the term "State" when it comes to an action to "bail out" from the preclearance requirement. Because this decision not only conflicts with Sheffield but also raises grave questions as to the constitutionality of the Act, I dissent.

I

Although I dissent on statutory and constitutional grounds, the need to examine closely the Court's treatment of the Voting Rights Act is sharply illustrated by the facts of this case. In Rome, a city of about 30,000, approximately 15% of the registered voters are black. This case involves two types of local action affecting voting. First, in 1966 the Georgia Assembly established a majority vote requirement for the City Commission and the Board of Education, and reduced the number of election wards from nine to three. Under the new arrangement, three city commissioners and two members of the Board of Education are chosen from each ward for numbered posts.1 Second, between 1964 and 1975 Rome completed 60 territorial annexations, 13 of which are at issue in this case. The annexations allegedly diluted the black vote in Rome by disproportionately adding white voters. But 9 of the 13 relevant tracts of land were completely unpopulated when they were taken over by the city. By 1978 the additional white voters in the annexed land had caused a net decline of 1% in the black share of Rome's electorate.2

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 195]

There is substantial conflict between the ultimate ruling of the three-judge District Court in this case and its findings of fact. That court made a finding that Rome has not employed a "literacy test or other device . . . as a prerequisite to voter registration during the past seventeen years," and that "in recent years there have been no other direct barriers to black voting in Rome." 472 F. Supp. 221, 224, 225 (DC 1979). The court observed that white officials have encouraged blacks to run for office, that there was no evidence of obstacles to political candidacy by blacks, and that a recent black contender for the Board of Education narrowly lost a runoff with 45% of the vote (in a city where blacks make up only 15% of the voters). Although no black has been elected to the municipal government, the court stated that the "white elected officials of Rome . . . are responsive to the needs and interests of the black community," and actively seek black political support.3 Id., at 225. Indeed, the District Court concluded that in Rome "the black community, if it chooses to vote as a group, can probably determine the outcome of many if not most contests." Ibid.

Despite these findings, the District Court refused to approve the annexations or the changes in voting procedures. The court held that the city had not proved that the annexations and voting changes did not reduce the political influence of Rome's blacks. Id., at 245, 247. I have many reservations about that conclusion. I note in particular that a black candidate running under the challenged election rules commanded

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 196]

three times the share of votes that the black community holds. Moreover, nine of the annexations at issue were of vacant land and thus had no effect at all on voting when they occurred. Nevertheless, I need not consider whether the District Court's ruling on the evidence is clearly erroneous. Rather, I cite the apparent factual inconsistencies of the holding below because they highlight how far the courts, including this Court, have departed from the original understanding of the Act's purpose and meaning.4 Against this background, I address the substantive questions posed by this case.

II

Under 4 (a) of the Voting Rights Act a State or political subdivision can attempt to end its preclearance obligations through a declaratory judgment action (or "bailout") in the District Court for the District of Columbia. 42 U.S.C. 1973b (a). Bailout must be granted if the District Court finds that in that jurisdiction no "test or device has been used during the seventeen years preceding the filing of the action for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." Ibid. The District Court expressly found that the city of Rome meets this standard and that blacks participate actively in Rome's political life. See supra, at 195. These findings demonstrate that the city has satisfied both the letter and the spirit of the bailout provision. Nevertheless, the District Court held that as long as Georgia is covered by 5 of the Act, the city of Rome may not alter any voting practice without the prior approval of federal authorities.5

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 197]

The Court today affirms the decision of the District Court, and holds that no subdivision may bail out so long as its State remains subject to preclearance. This conclusion can be reached only by disregarding the terms of the statute as we have interpreted them before. Section 4 (a) makes bailout available to "such State or subdivision," language that refers back to the provision's ban on the use of literacy tests (i) "in any State" reached by 4 (b) of the Act, or (ii) "in any political subdivision" which is covered "as a separate unit."6 Because the entire State of Georgia is covered under 4 (b), this case concerns the first category in that definition.7 Thus the crucial language here, as in Sheffield, is 4 (a)'s prohibition of tests or devices "in any State" covered under 4 (b).

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 198]

The Sheffield Court emphasized the territorial content of this key phrase. The Court reasoned that by referring to discriminatory practices "in" a State, Congress extended the ban on tests and devices to all political subdivisions with any control over voting. 435 U.S., at 120. Since the same language in 4 (a) also defines the applicability of 5, the Court continued, subdivisions must also be subject to preclearance. Consequently, federal authorities now must review all changes in local voting rules and regulations in States covered by the Act. 435 U.S., at 126-127.

The availability of a bailout action is defined by exactly the same phrase that the Court interpreted in Sheffield. In the bailout context, however, the Court today finds that the language does not reach political subdivisions. The Court thus construes the identical words in 4 (a) to have one meaning in one situation and a wholly different sense when applied in another context. Such a protean construction reduces the statute to irrationality.

This irrationality is evident in the contrast between the rights of localities like Rome that are in States covered by 4 (b), and those of covered local governments that are located in States not covered by the Act. Twenty-eight subdivisions in the latter group have bailed out from the preclearance obligation in six separate actions.8 Yet the only

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 199]

difference between those governments and the city of Rome is that the State in which Rome is located is itself subject to the Voting Rights Act. There is no reasoned justification for allowing a subdivision in North Carolina to bail out but denying a similar privilege to a subdivision in Georgia when both have been found to be in full compliance with the bail-out criteria.

The District Court acknowledged, and the Court today does not deny, the "abstract force" of this argument. The argument nevertheless fails, according to the Court's opinion, for two reasons: (i) Sheffield "did not hold that cities such as Rome are `political subdivisions'" or "States," but merely subjected such entities to the preclearance requirement of 5; and (ii) congressional Reports accompanying the Voting Rights Act of 1965 state that bailout should not be available to a subdivision located in a State covered by the Act. Ante, at 168-169. Neither reason supports the Court's decision. That Sheffield did not identify cities like Rome as "States" or "political subdivisions" as defined by the Act does not answer the point that the construction of "State" in Sheffield should control the availability of bailout. Both in terms of logic and of fairness, if Rome must preclear it must also be free to bail out. Second, it is elementary that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no occasion to look at its legislative history. We resort to legislative materials only when the congressional mandate is unclear on its face.

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 200]

Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 61 (1949); United States v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 643, 648 (1961). Although "committee reports in particular are often a helpful guide to the meaning of ambiguous statutory language, even they must be disregarded if inconsistent with the plain language of the statute." Gooding v. United States, 416 U.S. 430, 468 (1974) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).

After Sheffield, there can be little dispute over the meaning of "State" as used in 4 (a): It includes all political subdivisions that exercise control over elections.9 Accordingly, there is no basis for the Court's reliance on congressional statements that are inconsistent with the terms of the statute. If 4 (a) imposes the burden of preclearance on Rome, the same section must also relieve that burden when the city can demonstrate its compliance with the Act's quite strict requirements for bailout.

III

There is, however, more involved here than incorrect construction of the statute. The Court's interpretation of 4 (a) renders the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional as applied to the city of Rome. The preclearance requirement both intrudes on the prerogatives of state and local governments and abridges the voting rights of all citizens in States covered under the Act. Under 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress may impose such constitutional deprivations only if it is acting to remedy violations of voting rights. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-328 (1966); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 667 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting). In view of the District Court finding that Rome has not denied or abridged the voting rights of blacks, the

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 201]

Fifteenth Amendment provides no authority for continuing those deprivations until the entire State of Georgia satisfies the bailout standards of 4 (a).10

When this Court first sustained the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it conceded that the legislation was "an uncommon exercise of congressional power." South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 334. The Court recognized that preclearance under the Act implicates serious federalism concerns. 383 U.S., at 324-327. As MR. JUSTICE STEVENS noted in Sheffield, the statute's "encroachment on state sovereignty is significant and undeniable." 435 U.S. at 141 (dissenting opinion).11 That encroachment is especially troubling because it destroys local control of the means of self-government, one of the central values of our polity.12 Unless the federal structure provides

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 202]

some protection for a community's ordering of its own democratic procedures, the right of each community to determine its own course within the boundaries marked by the Constitution is at risk. Preclearance also operates at an individual level to diminish the voting rights of residents of covered areas. Federal review of local voting practices reduces the influence that citizens have over policies directly affecting them, and strips locally elected officials of their autonomy to chart policy.

The Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, did not lightly approve these intrusions on federalism and individual rights. It upheld the imposition of preclearance as a prophylactic measure based on the remedial power of Congress to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. But the Court emphasized that preclearance, like any remedial device, can be imposed only in response to some harm. When Congress approved the Act, the Court observed, there was "reliable evidence of actual voting discrimination in a great majority of the States and political subdivisions affected by the new remedies of the Act." 383 U.S., at 329. Since the coverage formula in 4 (b) purported to identify accurately those jurisdictions that had engaged in voting discrimination, the imposition of preclearance was held to be justified "at least in the absence of proof that [the state or local government has] been free of substantial voting discrimination in recent years." 383 U.S., at 330.13

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 203]

The Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach emphasized, however, that a government subjected to preclearance could be relieved of federal oversight if voting discrimination in fact did not continue or materialize during the prescribed period.

"Acknowledging the possibility of overbreadth, the Act provides for termination of special statutory coverage at the behest of States and political subdivisions in which the danger of substantial voting discrimination has not materialized during the preceding [statutorily defined period]." Id., at 331.

Although this passage uses the term "overbreadth" in an unusual sense, the point is clear. As long as the bailout option is available, there is less cause for concern that the Voting Rights Act may overreach congressional powers by imposing preclearance on a nondiscriminating government. Without bailout, the problem of constitutional authority for preclearance becomes acute.

The Court today decrees that the citizens of Rome will not have direct control over their city's voting practices until the entire State of Georgia can free itself from the Act's restrictions. Under the current interpretation of the word "State" in 4 (a), Georgia will have to establish not only that it has satisfied the standards in 4 (a), but also that each and every one of its political subdivisions meets those criteria. This outcome makes every city and county in Georgia a hostage to the errors, or even the deliberate intransigence, of a single subdivision.14

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 204]

Since the statute was enacted, only one State has succeeded in bailing out - Alaska in 1966, and again in 1971.15 That precedent holds out little or no hope for more populous States such as Georgia. Demonstrating a right to bailout in 1966 for Alaska's 272,000 people and 56 political subdivisions, or in 1971 for that State's 302,000 people and 60 subdivisions, is a far cry from seeking bailout now on behalf of Georgia's approximately 5 million people and 877 local governments.16

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 205]

Today's ruling therefore will seal off the constitutionally necessary safety valve in the Voting Rights Act.

The preclearance requirement enforces a presumption against voting changes by certain state and local governments. If that presumption is restricted to those governments meeting 4 (b)'s coverage criteria, and if the presumption can be rebutted by a proper showing in a bailout suit, the Act may be seen, as the South Carolina v. Katzenbach Court saw it, as action by Congress at the limit of its authority under the Fifteenth Amendment. But if governments like the city of Rome may not bail out, the statute oversteps those limits. For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the District Court.17

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 206]

IV

If there were reason to believe that today's decision would protect the voting rights of minorities in any way, perhaps this case could be viewed as one where the Court's ends justify dubious analytical means. But the District Court found, and no one denies, that for at least 17 years there has been no voting discrimination by the city of Rome. Despite this record, the Court today continues federal rule over the most local decisions made by this small city in Georgia. Such an outcome must vitiate the incentive for any local government in a State covered by the Act to meet diligently the Act's requirements. Neither the Framers of the Fifteenth Amendment nor the Congress that enacted the Voting Rights Act could have intended that result.

[Footnote 1] As part of the package of revisions, the Assembly increased the Board of Education from five to six members, eased voter registration requirements, and shifted registration responsibility to the county. 472 F. Supp. 221, 224 (DC 1979).

[Footnote 2] The statistics on this question are not altogether satisfactory, since the 1978 population of the annexed areas must be compared to 1975

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 195]

voter registration totals. Given that 16.6% of the city's voters were black in 1975, that percentage drops only to 15.6% after adding the 823 white voters and 9 black voters who lived in the annexed areas in 1978. See Brief for Appellees 38, n. 26.

[Footnote 3] The District Court also noted that the city has "made an effort to upgrade some black neighborhoods," has subsidized the transit system which has a predominantly black ridership, and has hired a number of blacks for skilled and supervisory positions in the municipal government. 472 F. Supp., at 225.

[Footnote 4] The Court's opinion simply ignores the most relevant facts. In so doing, the Court averts its eyes from the central paradox of this case: Even though Rome has met every criterion established by the Voting Rights Act for protecting the political rights of minorities, the Court holds that the city must remain subject to preclearance.

[Footnote 5] Section 5 permits two methods of preclearance. A local government may ask the District Court for the District of Columbia for a ruling that

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 197]

the voting change is acceptable, or it may submit the change to the Attorney General for him to accept or reject within 60 days. 42 U.S.C. 1973c. The administrative procedure is used almost exclusively, since it takes less time.

[Footnote 6] Section 4 (a), as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 1973b (a), provides in relevant part:

"To assure that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is not denied or abridged on account of race or color, no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or device in any State with respect to which the determinations have been made under the first two sentences of subsection (b) of this section or in any political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit, unless the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action for a declaratory judgment brought by such State or subdivision against the United States has determined that no such test or device has been used during the seventeen years preceding the filing of the action for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)

[Footnote 7] Under 4 (b), a State or political subdivision is subject to the Act if the Director of the Census finds that less than 50% of the eligible population voted in the last Presidential election, and the Attorney General determines that a discriminatory "test or device" was maintained in the jurisdiction in 1964. Those determinations, which are unreviewable, trigger the application of the preclearance requirement of 5. 42 U.S.C. 1973b (b), 1973c.

[Footnote 8] Counties of Choctaw and McCurtain, Okla. v. United States, C. A. No. 76-1250 (DC May 12, 1978) (two counties); New Mexico, Curry, McKinley and Otero Counties v. United States, C. A. No. 76-0067 (DC July 30, 1976) (three counties); Maine v. United States, C. A. No. 75-2125 (DC Sept. 17, 1976) (13 municipalities and 5 "plantations"); Wake County, N.C. v. United States, C. A. No. 1198-66 (DC Jan. 23, 1967) (one county); Elmore County, Idaho v. United States, C. A. No. 320-66 (DC Sept. 22, 1966) (one county); Apache, Navaho and Coconino Counties, Ariz. v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 903 (DC 1966) (three counties). Three counties in New York City bailed out in 1972, New York v. United States, C. A. No. 2419-71 (DC Apr. 13, 1972), but the bailout order was rescinded two years later after a District Court found that the State had conducted elections in English only, thereby

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 199]

violating the Act. New York v. United States, C. A. No. 2419-71 (DC Jan. 18, 1974) (referring to Torres v. Sachs, C. A. No. 73-3921 (CES) (SDNY Sept. 27, 1973)), summarily aff'd, 419 U.S. 888 (1974).

Bailout was denied in one action involving a local subdivision, Gaston County, N.C. v. United States, (1969), and three were dismissed by stipulation of the parties, Board of Commissioners, El Paso County, Colo. v. United States, C. A. No. 77-0185 (DC No. 8, 1977); Yuba County, Cal. v. United States, C. A. No. 75-2170 (DC May 25, 1976); Nash County, N.C. v. United States, C. A. No. 1702-66 (DC Sept. 26, 1969).

[Footnote 9] This construction applies to political subdivisions defined by 14 (c) (2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973l (c) (2), as well as to governments like Rome that do not fall within that statutory definition. Thus, under Sheffield's statutory interpretation, all subdivisions in States covered by the Act should be entitled to bail out. The constitutional analysis of Part III, infra, reaches the same conclusion.

[Footnote 10] In view of the narrower focus of my approach to the statutory and constitutional issues raised in this case, I do not reach the broad analysis offered by MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S dissent.

[Footnote 11] Other Justices have expressed the same concern. E. g., South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 358 (1966) (Black, J., concurring and dissenting); Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 586, and n. 4 (1969) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 545 (1973) (POWELL, J., dissenting).

In National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 856, n. 20 (1976), the Court noted that because political subdivisions "derive their authority and power from their respective States," their integrity, like that of the States, is protected by the principles of federalism.

[Footnote 12] The federal system allocates primary control over elections to state and local officials. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 125 (1970) (opinion of Black, J.); id., at 201 (opinion of Harlan, J.); Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 50 (1959).

This Court has emphasized the importance in a democratic society of preserving local control of local matters. See Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744 (1974) (federal court control of local schools "would deprive the people of control of schools through their elected representatives"); James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S. 137, 143 (1971) (local referendum on public housing project "ensures that all the people of a community will have a voice in a decision which may lead to large expenditures . . . and to lower tax revenues"). Preservation of local control, naturally

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 202]

enough, involves protecting the integrity of state and local governments. See National League of Cities v. Usery, supra, at 855; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 565 (1911).

[Footnote 13] The Court found important confirmation of the rationality of the coverage formula in the fact that there was no evidence of "recent racial discrimination involving tests and devices" in States or subdivisions exempted from preclearance. 383 U.S., at 331.

This Court took a similar approach when it affirmed the temporary suspension of all literacy tests by Congress in 1970. Oregon v. Mitchell, supra. The entire Court agreed with Mr. Justice Black's view that

[Page 446 U.S. 156, 203]

the congressional action was justified by the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disfranchise voters on account of their race." 400 U.S., at 132. See id., at 146 (opinion of Douglas, J.); id., at 216, and n. 94 (opinion of Harlan, J.); id., at 234-235 (opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.); id., at 284 (opinion of STEWART, J.). That history supported temporary suspension of those few literacy tests still in use, see id., at 147 (opinion of Douglas, J.), without providing any bailout-like option. In contrast, preclearance involves a broad restraint on all s