Mobile v. Bolden
Mobile v. Bolden is a significant Supreme Court case from the 1980s that addressed issues of racial discrimination in electoral systems. The case emerged from Mobile, Alabama, where a three-member city commission had been elected at-large since 1911, despite African Americans constituting nearly 40% of the population without any elected representation. A district court initially deemed this electoral system unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision in a 6-3 ruling. Justice Potter Stewart's plurality opinion emphasized that a policy must be shown to have a racially discriminatory intent to be deemed unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
In sharp contrast, Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent highlighted the need to consider the effects of voting systems, arguing that the Court was complicit in maintaining racial discrimination by adhering strictly to an intent standard. Although the ruling in Mobile v. Bolden set a precedent for evaluating electoral systems, it became less impactful after the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act introduced a modified discriminatory effects test, which enabled plaintiffs to challenge voting dilution more effectively. This case remains relevant in discussions about electoral equity and the representation of minority populations in government.
Mobile v. Bolden
Date: April 22, 1980
Citation: 446 U.S. 55
Issue: One person, one vote concept
Significance: Reaffirming that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments prohibit only “purposeful discrimination,” the Supreme Court upheld an at-large system of voting in which no African American had ever been elected.
The three-member city commission of Mobile, Alabama, had been elected on a citywide basis since 1911. Although African Americans made up almost 40 percent of the population, none had ever been elected to the commission. A district court found that the at-large system was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, reversed the judgment. In evaluating Mobile’s electoral system according to the demands of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, Justice Potter Stewart’s plurality opinion simply followed the Court’s many precedents indicating that a state policy that is neutral on its face does not violate the Constitution unless it is “motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose.” In an angry dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall accused the Court of being “an accessory to the perpetuation of racial discrimination” and argued that voting rights should be judged according to a discriminatory effects test rather than a discriminatory intent standard.
In Rogers v. Lodge (1982), the Court used the Bolden standard to strike down an at-large electoral scheme in Georgia. The Court’s ruling in Bolden, however, became almost irrelevant after Congress passed the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act, which allows plaintiffs to prevail in voting dilution cases on the basis of a modified discriminatory effects test.