East Carroll Par. Sch. Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976). · Go Syfert
Search
East Carroll Par. Sch. Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case · “Nevett II”
1,284 citation events (48 in the last 25 years) across 50 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hendrix v. McKinney (almd, 1978-11-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Hendrix v. McKinney (3×)
M.D. Ala. · 1978 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
nevett ii
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nipper v. Smith
11th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Id. at 426-27, 111 S.Ct. at 2380-81.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nipper v. Smith
11th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Id. at 426-27, 111 S.Ct. at 2380-81. 135 In the instant case, Florida appoints a large percentage of its trial court judges through a merit selection process--but requires judges to compete in nonpartisan retention elections.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brooklyn Heights Ass'n v. Macchiarola
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1992 · confidence medium
As stated by the United States Supreme Court in East Carroll Parish School Bd. v Marshall ( 424 US 636, 638-639, n 6 ): "In any event, we agree * * * that court-ordered plans resulting from equitable jurisdiction over adversary proceedings are not controlled by § 5.” (See also, Connor v Johnson, 402 US 690 .) Furthermore, in Hathorn v Lovom ( 457 US 255 [1982]) the court held that State courts may properly decide Voting Rights Act issues that arise collaterally in actions initially commenced under State law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baker v. City of Kissimmee, Fla.
M.D. Fla. · 1986 · confidence medium
The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that past discrimination may lead to "present socio-economic disadvantages which in turn can reduce participation and influence in political affairs." United States v. Marengo County Commission, 731 F.2d 1546, 1567 (11th Cir.1984) (citing Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297, 1306 (5th Cir.1973) (en banc), aff’d per curiam, sub nom East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 *578 (1976)), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 469 U.S. 976 , 105 S.Ct. 375 , 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. Western Electric Co. (2×)
4th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
The Fifth Circuit, en banc, reversed the panel on the merits of the first plan, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973), and the Supreme Court affirmed the en banc court, sub nom., East Carroll Parrish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 638, n. 4 , 96 S.Ct. 1083, 1084, n. 4 , 47 L.Ed. 296 (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 28 Fair empl.prac.cas. 130, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,478 Ollie T. Hill, John W. Ward, Charles R. Merriwether, Jr., Edward H. Minatee, Minnie Marble, Mary E. Carter, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Western Electric Company, Inc., Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae (2×)
4th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
The Fifth Circuit, en banc, reversed the panel on the merits of the first plan, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973), and the Supreme Court affirmed the en banc court, sub nom., East Carroll Parrish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 638, n. 4 , 96 S.Ct. 1083, 1084, n. 4 , 47 L.Ed. 296 (1976).
examined Cited as authority (rule) McDaniel v. Sanchez (4×)
SCOTUS · 1981 · confidence medium
Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690, 691 (1971)." 424 U. S., at 638-639, n. 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Herman Lodge v. J. F. Buxton, Ray Delaigle
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
These findings and conclusions are sufficient to sustain the District Court's judgment with respect to the Dallas multimember district and, on this record, we have no reason to disturb them 412 U.S., at 766-67 , 93 S.Ct. at 2339-40 . 15 The Supreme Court expressly said that it affirmed the judgment "without approval of the constitutional views expressed by the Court of Appeals." 424 U.S., at 638, 96 S.Ct., at 1084 16 In Zimmer, the proof of these criteria was an end unto itself.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McDaniel Et Al. v. Sanchez Et Al.
SCOTUS · 1980 · confidence medium
He concluded that the Council could only have acted pursuant to a court order and that the case was therefore controlled by East Carroll, supra, at 638, n. 6 , where we labeled a plan “judicial” partly because *1321 the legislative body had no authority to reapportion itself. 437 U. S., at 550-554 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Mobile v. Bolden (2×)
SCOTUS · 1980 · confidence medium
Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (1904). [16] This Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Zimmer v. McKeithen on grounds other than those relied on by that court and explicitly "without approval of the constitutional views expressed by the Court of Appeals." East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U. S. 636, 638 ( per curiam ). [17] The only indication given by the District Court of an inference that there existed an invidious purpose was the following statement: "It is not a long step from the systematic exclusion of blacks from juries which is itself such an `unequal…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wise v. Lipscomb (2×)
SCOTUS · 1978 · confidence medium
Indeed, in rejecting the argument of the United States (appearing as amicus curiae) that the East Carroll plan was subject to the preclearance procedure of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we expressly noted that the police jury “did not have the authority to reapportion itself,” and that the plan, though sub mitted by the police jury, was a “court-ordered pla[n] resulting from equitable jurisdiction over the adversary proceedings.” 424 U. S., at 638-639, n. 6 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Baker
4th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Opinion styled East Carroll Parrish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, at p. 638, n.4 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Merlis J. Broussard v. Chalin Octave Perez
5th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
The United States Supreme Court, in East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976), considered the Attorney General’s objection to La.Rev.Stat. § 17:71 and stated: Moreover, since the Louisiana enabling legislation was opposed by the Attorney General of the United States under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the [police] jury did not have the authority to reapportion itself. 424 U.S. at 639, note 6 , 96 S.Ct. at 1085 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) 17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 622, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8310 Nora Lewis, Elizabeth Bullock, Mary Carter, Betty Johnson, and Gertrude Moody, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Tobacco Workers' International Union, an Unincorporated Association, Philip Morris, Incorporated, a Corporation, and Local 203, Tobacco Workers' International Union, an Unincorporated Association, Nora Lewis, Elizabeth Bullock, Mary Carter, Betty Johnson, and Gertrude Moody, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Local 203, Tobacco Workers' International Union, an Unincorporated Association, and Philip Morris, Incorporated, a Corporation, Tobacco Workers' International Union, an Unincorporated Association, Nora Lewis, Elizabeth Bullock, Mary Carter, Betty Johnson, and Gertrude Moody, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, a Corporation, Tobacco Workers' International Union, an Unincorporated Association, and Local 203, Tobacco Workers' International Union, an Unincorporated Association
4th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Opinion styled East Carroll Parrish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, at p. 638, n.4 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Paige v. Gray (4×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Wallace v. House, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 1721 , 48 L.Ed.2d 191 (1976), vacating, 515 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1975); East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083, 1085-86 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296, 299 (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fanny Paige, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Cross-Appellants v. James Gray, Mayor of the City of Albany, Georgia, Cross-Appellees. United States of America v. City of Albany (2×)
5th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Wallace v. House, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 1721 , 48 L.Ed.2d 191 (1976), vacating, 515 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1975); East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 1085-86 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296, 299 (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nevett v. Sides (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
See also Wallace v. House, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 1721 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 , 44 U.S.L.W. 3607 (1976) (granting certiorari from our decision, 515 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1975) which fashioned a "mixed" plan with one of five aldermen elected at-large) vacating the judgment, and remanding for reconsideration in light of East Carroll; Beer v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 47 L.Ed.2d 296, 639-40 (1976).
cited Cited "see" Elizondo v. Spring Branch Independent School District
S.D. Tex. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Quitman, 148 F.3d at 476 (citing inter alia Connor, 97 S. Ct. at 1834 , and East Carroll Parish, 96 S. Ct. at 1085 & n. 6).
discussed Cited "see" Adams v. Rice (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See 424 U.S. at 638-39, 96 S.Ct. 1083 .
discussed Cited "see" Henry T. McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida (2×)
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 638-40 , 96 S.Ct. 1083, 1084-85 , 47 L.Ed.2d *973 296 (1976).
examined Cited "see" Clinton Jackson v. Desoto Parish School Board (3×)
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Zimmer v. McKeithen, 5 Cir. en banc 1973, 485 F.2d 1297 , aff’d sub nom., East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 1976, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 ; Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors, 5 Cir. en banc 1977, 554 F.2d 139 , cert. denied, 1977, 434 U.S. 968 , 98 S.Ct. 512 , 54 L.Ed.2d 454 , and cases cited therein.
discussed Cited "see" Nevett v. Sides
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nevett v. Sides, 533 F.2d 1361 , 1365 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1976) 7 The district court's original findings of fact and conclusions of law are reported as appendices to our prior opinion, Nevett v. Sides, 533 F.2d 1361, 1366-76 (5th Cir. 1976) 8 The Supreme Court affirmed, "but without approval of the constitutional views expressed by the Court of Appeals." 424 U.S. at 636 , 96 S.Ct. at 1085.
examined Cited "see" United States v. The Board of Supervisors of Forrest County, Mississippi (3×)
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976); Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, 554 F.2d 139 , 141 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1977).
discussed Cited "see" Morris v. Gressette
SCOTUS · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brief for Appellants 17-20. [12] Although appellants at one point argued in the District Court that Act 1205 was a court-ordered plan outside the scope of § 5, see East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, supra; n. 8 , supra, the parties now agree that § 5 is applicable.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Holder v. Hall
SCOTUS · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carrollton Branch of NAACP v. Stallings, 829 F. 2d 1547 (CA11 1987) (remand of challenge to solecommissioner system with instructions to consider size and geographic compactness within proposed three- and five-member commission forms of government). [5] Of course, this is not to suggest that single-member executive offices are not within the scope of § 2, see Houston Lawyers' Assn. v. Attorney General of Tex., 501 U. S. 419, 425-428 (1991), but only that they are not generally susceptible to size challenges under § 2. [6] The Senate Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to the Act…
examined Cited "see, e.g." League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434, and Jessie Oliver, Intervening v. William P. Clements, Etc., Jim Mattox v. Judge F. Harold Entz, Etc., Judge Sharolyn Wood, Etc., and George S. Bayoud, Jr., Etc., and Tom Rickhoff, Susan D. Reed, John J. Specia, Jr., Sid L. Harle, Sharon MacRae and Michael P. Pedan, Bexar County, Texas State District Judges (3×)
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (1973), aff'd sub nom East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).
examined Cited "see, e.g." League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements (3×)
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (1973), aff'd sub nom East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).
examined Cited "see, e.g." David Baird v. The Consolidated City of Indianapolis (3×)
7th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297, 1307 (5th Cir.1973), affirmed under the name East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Collins v. City of Norfolk, Virginia (3×)
4th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See — U.S. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 2780; see also Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297, 1307 (5th Cir.1973), aff'd sub nom East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Collins v. City of Norfolk, Virginia (3×)
4th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See --- U.S. at ----, 106 S.Ct. at 2780; see also Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297, 1307 (5th Cir.1973), aff'd sub nom East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976). 30 Moreover, the absence of a conspiracy or an intent to moot this litigation does not end the district court's inquiry.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hurlbut v. Scheetz (2×)
8th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 415 , 97 S.Ct. 1828, 1834 , 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977) (quoting Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 333 , 93 S.Ct. 979 , 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973)); see also East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 639 , 96 S.Ct. 1083, 1085 , 47 L.Ed.2d 796 (1976) (per curiam) (single-member districts preferred over at-large voting absent “unusual circumstances”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alan Hurlbut and Linda Hurlbut v. Wyman Scheetz, Dale Schulz, John Bobb, Jr., Mrs. Eugene Emineth and Bill Hickle, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Center School District, No. 18 v. North Dakota State Board of Public School Education (2×)
8th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 415 , 97 S.Ct. 1828, 1834 , 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977) (quoting Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 333 , 93 S.Ct. 979 , 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973)); see also East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 639 , 96 S.Ct. 1083, 1085 , 47 L.Ed.2d 796 (1976) (per curiam) (single-member districts preferred over at-large voting absent "unusual circumstances").
examined Cited "see, e.g." Jack McCarty v. Ben Henson (3×)
5th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jones v. City of Lubbock, 727 F.2d 364 (5th Cir.1984). 3 . 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir.1973) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, sub nom., East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976). 4 . 639 F.2d 1358, 1375 (5th Cir.1981). 5 . 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 (West Supp.1983). 6 . 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 (West Supp.1983). 7 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robbins v. California
SCOTUS · 1981 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130 , with East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U. S. 636 , see especially Stewart, J., dissenting in McDaniel, supra, at 154 ; see also Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U. S. 594, 609 (Stewart, J., dissenting); id., at 606 (Stevens, J., concurring).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Henry J. Kirksey, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, Mississippi, Defendants (6×)
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Lawrence E. Moch v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (3×)
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973), aff’d sub nom., East Caroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 , 96 S.Ct. 1083 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nevett v. Sides
5th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wallace v. House,U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 1721 , 47 L.Ed.2d 296 , 44 U.S.L.W. 3607 (1976) (granting certiorari from our decision, 515 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1975) which fashioned a “mixed” plan with one of five aldermen elected at-large) vacating the judgment, and remanding for reconsideration in light of East Carroll; Beer v. United States,U.S. -,---, 96 S.Ct. 1357 , 47 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EAST CARROLL PARISH SCHOOL BOARD Et Al.
v.
MARSHALL
73-861.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 8, 1976.
424 U.S. 636
John F. Ward, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners., Stanley A. Hatpin, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg and Eric Schnapper., Brian K. Landsberg argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Pottinger, John C. Hoyle, and Jessica Dunsay Silver.*
Burger.
Cited by 336 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 72%
Citer courts: M.D. Alabama (3)

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole issue raised by this case is how compliance with the one-man, one-vote principle should be achieved in a parish (county) that is admittedly malapportioned.

Plaintiff Zimmer, a white resident of East Carroll Parish, La., brought suit in 1968 alleging that population disparities among the wards of the parish had unconstitu[*637] tionally denied him the right to cast an effective vote in elections for members of the police jury[1] and the school board. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968). After a hearing the District Court agreed that the wards were unevenly apportioned and adopted a reapportionment plan suggested by the East Carroll police jury calling for the at-large election of members of both the police jury and the school board.[2] The 1969 and 1970 elections were held under this plan.

The proceedings were renewed in 1971 after the District Court, apparently sua sponte, instructed the East Carroll police jury and school board to file reapportionment plans revised in accordance with the 1970 census. In response, the jury and board resubmitted the at-large plan. Respondent Marshall was permitted to intervene on behalf of himself and all other black voters in East Carroll. Following a hearing the District Court again[*638] approved the multimember arrangement. The inter-venor appealed,[3] contending that at-large elections would tend to dilute the black vote in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Over a dissent, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed,[4] but on rehearing en banc, the court reversed.[5] It found clearly erroneous the District Court’s ruling that at-large elections would not diminish the black voting strength of East Carroll Parish. Relying upon White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755 (1973), it seemingly held that multimember districts were unconstitutional, unless their use would afford a minority greater opportunity for political participation, or unless the use of single-member districts would infringe protected rights.

We granted certiorari, 422 U. S. 1055 (1975), and now affirm the judgment below, but without approval of the constitutional views expressed by the Court of Appeals.[6] [*639] See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

The District Court, in adopting the multimember, at-large reapportionment plan, was silent as to the relative merits of a single-member arrangement. And the Court of Appeals, inexplicably in our view, declined to consider whether the District Court erred under Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690 (1971), in endorsing a multimember plan, resting, its decision instead upon constitutional grounds. We have frequently reaffirmed the rule that when United States district courts are put to the task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant con-cededly invalid state legislation, single-member districts are to be preferred absent unusual circumstances. Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 17-19 (1976); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315, 333 (1973); Connor v. Williams, 404 U. S. 549, 551 (1972); Connor v. Johnson, supra, at 692. As the en banc opinion of the Court of Appeals amply demonstrates, no special circumstances here dictate the use of multimember districts. Thus, we hold that in shaping remedial relief the District Court abused[*640] its discretion in not initially ordering a single-member reapportionment plan.

On this basis, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

In Louisiana, the police jury is the governing body of the parish. Its authority includes construction and repair of roads, levying taxes to defray parish expenses, providing for the public health, and performing other duties related to public health and welfare. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §33:1236 (1950 and Supp. 1975).

2

Prior to 1968, Louisiana law prohibited at-large elections of members of police juries and school boards. In July 1968, the Governor of Louisiana approved enabling legislation permitting the at-large election of parish police juries and school boards. La. Laws 1968, Act No. 445, codified at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§33:1221, 33:1224 (Supp. 1975); La. Laws 1968, Act No. 561, codified at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§17:71.1-17:71.6 (Supp. 1975).

Both Acts were submitted to the United States Attorney General pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, and both were rejected because of their discriminatory effect on Negro voters. See letters, June 26, 1969, and Sept. 10, 1969, from Jerris Leonard, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, to Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana. Indeed, East Carroll Parish was cited as exemplifying the dilution in black ballot strength that at-large voting may cause. Letter of Sept. 10, 1969.

3

The original plaintiff, Zimmer, was allowed to withdraw from the case.

4

Zimmer v. McKeithen, 467 F. 2d 1381 (CA5 1972).

During pendency of the appeal in the court below, the District Court purported to withdraw its order approving the at-large plan and to substitute in its stead a complex redistricting plan submitted by intervenor Marshall. The Court of Appeals vacated the order on the ground that when the appeal was filed, the District Court lost jurisdiction over the case. Id., at 1382.

5

Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F. 2d 1297 (CA5 1973).

6

The Government has filed an amicus brief, in which it argues that the preclearance procedures of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, must be complied with prior to adoption by a federal district court of a reapportionment plan submitted to it on behalf of a local legislative body that is covered by the Act. This issue was not raised by the petitioners nor did respondent file a cross-petition. In any event, we agree with the Court of Appeals, Zimmer v. McKeithen, 467 F. 2d, at 1383; Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F. 2d, at 1302 n. 9, that court-ordered plans resulting from equi[*639] table jurisdiction over adversary proceedings are not controlled by § 5. Had the East Carroll police jury reapportioned itself on its own authority, clearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act would clearly have been required. Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975). However, in submitting the plan to the District Court, the jury did not purport to reapportion itself in accordance with the 1968 enabling legislation, see n. 2, supra, and statutes cited therein, which permitted police juries and school boards to adopt at-large elections. App. 56. Moreover, since the Louisiana enabling legislation was opposed by the Attorney General of the United States under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the jury did not have the authority to reapportion itself. See n. 2, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-14, 31-32, 43-44. Since the reapportionment scheme was submitted and adopted pursuant to court order, the preclearance procedures of § 5 do not apply. Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690, 691 (1971).

Concurrence

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

concurring.

I consider it unnecessary to reach the question discussed, ante, at 638-639, n. 6. It was, as the Court observes in n. 6, “not raised by the petitioners, nor did respondent file a cross-petition.” The scope of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act is an important matter, and I would not undertake to express any view on what the Court discusses by way of dicta in n. 6.