Judson Edge, Ronald J. Foust, Georgia L. Deriso, David W. Tietjen, and Arthur Watts v. Sumter County School District, et al.

Summary

The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded a district court-ordered reapportionment plan for elections to the Sumter County, Georgia, school board. The court held that the district court had to conduct a hearing and assess compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, properly address Section 5 objections, and consider whether an at-large seat could be retained consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements. The court allowed officials elected under the challenged plan to remain in office until the scheduled November 1986 election.

Holdings

1. A district court may not validly adopt a reapportionment plan without determining whether the plan complies with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
2. When a district court adopts a reapportionment plan without holding a hearing or analyzing the § 2 factors, the proper course is to vacate and remand for a hearing and reconsideration under the correct standards.
3. Where no legally enforceable electoral plan is in effect, a proposed plan must be evaluated in relation to other properly apportioned alternatives rather than treated as a change from a valid existing at-large plan; § 5 analysis must also account for whether the new plan itself discriminates in violation of the Constitution.
4. A district court designing a court-ordered reapportionment remedy must limit modifications to those necessary to cure constitutional or statutory defects and must consider preserving unobjected-to aspects of the legislature's plan when legally permissible.
5. The district court possessed jurisdiction, derived from the three-judge court's remand, to supervise the development of and create a valid electoral plan even though no prior legally enforceable plan was available for reinstatement.
6. Vacatur of the district court's plan did not require immediate new elections; officials elected under the plan could remain in office until the scheduled November 1986 election while a valid plan was developed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court could adopt a court-ordered reapportionment plan without determining whether the plan complied with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
2. Whether the district court properly applied § 5's retrogression and discriminatory-effect principles when evaluating a plan in a jurisdiction with no legally enforceable electoral system.
3. Whether the district court was required to consider preserving the legislature's preference for one at-large seat and six single-member districts if that configuration could satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements.
4. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to supervise and create a valid electoral plan after the prior plan was enjoined.
5. Whether new elections were required after the court-ordered plan was vacated.

Disposition

vacated_and_remanded