Case: City of Bedford v. Holder

The City of Bedford, Virginia is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including Section 5, 42 U.S.C.  § 1973c.  The was based on a coverage determination made pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act.  Under Section 5, the City is required to obtain preclearance from either the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General of the United States for any change in voting qualifications, standards, practices and procedures since the Act's November 1, 1964 coverage date for Virginia. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act provides that a covered jurisdiction, such as the City, may seek to "bailout" or remove itself from Section 5's preclearance procedures by seeking a declaratory judgment before a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Such a bailout judgment can be issued only if the court determines that the jurisdiction meets certain eligibility requirements for bailout contained in the statute, including a 10-year record of nondiscrimination in voting-related actions. The act also provides that the attorney general can consent to entry of a judgment of bailout if, based upon investigation, the attorney general is satisfied that the jurisdiction meets the eligibility requirements.  

On March 4, 2011, the City filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment that the City was entitled to a "bailout" from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  The City also requested a three-judge panel to hear the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973b. Defendants were the Attorney General for the United States and the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.  On March 11, 2011, Judge David B. Sentelle designated a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Thomas B. Griffith of the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and Judge Robert L. Wilkins of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.  

The Bedford City Council is the governing body consisting of seven members that formulates policies for the administration of government in the City.  Members are elected at-large and serve a four-year term.  Terms are staggered such that at least three members are up every two years.  City Council also elects the Mayor and Vice-Mayor from their members for a two-year term. Three black members have served on the City Council since 1972. The City also has a three-person Electoral Board which nominates a roster of persons each February to work as poll workers for a one-year term.  Since 2004, two black members have served on the Electoral Board. In the last City Council election held in the City before the Complaint was filed (November 2010), there were 19 poll workers, four (21%) of whom were black.  The percentage of black poll workers in the 2010 election slightly exceeded the percentage of the City's black voting age population (19.4%). Data showed that a significant portion of the City's voting age population was registered to vote. As of the end of October 2010, there were 3,849 registered voters in the City, which constituted 77.9% of the City's voting age population of 4,944 persons.  In addition, the number of registered voters rose over the decade. From 2001 to 2010, the total number of registered voters in the City grew by 8.6%, from 3,543 in 2001 to 3,849. 

Before it filed its lawsuit, the City contacted the United States Department of Justice and provided it with information demonstrating the City's qualifications for bailout. The Department of Justice conducted its own investigation, which included interviewing members of the local minority community and reviewing a significant number of documents, such as demographic data, minutes of the meetings of the Bedford City Council, records relating to voter registration and turnout in the City and records of the City's prior preclearance submissions.  Based on its investigation, the Department concluded that the City met the requirements for bailout.  On June 8, 2011, the City and the Department jointly moved the Court for entry of a Consent Judgment and Decree approving the City's bailout from the preclearance requirements of Section 5.  

On August 31, 2011, the Court entered the Consent Judgment and Decree.  The Court made the following findings with respect to the statutory bailout criteria.  The Court found that during the ten years preceding the filing of this action and during the pendency of the case: 

1. No test or device was used either for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. During the relevant time period there was also no indication that any person in the City of Bedford has been denied the right to vote on account of race or color.
2. No final judgment was entered by any court determining that the City has denied or abridged the right to vote on account of race or color.
3. No Federal examiners or observers were assigned to the City.
4. The City made eight preclearance submissions to the Attorney General. The Attorney General did not object to any of the City's submissions, and there was no evidence that the City enforced any changes that had an actual effect on voting in elections prior to receiving preclearance under Section 5.
5. There was no need for the City to repeal any voting changes to which the Attorney General  objected, or to which the Court denied a declaratory judgment, since no such objection or denial had occurred.
6. The Attorney General did not interpose any objections to voting changes submitted by or behalf of the City for administrative review under Section 5.  The City never sought judicial preclearance under Section 5 so the Court never denied the City a declaratory judgment under Section 5.
7. The City did not employ methods of election which inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process.
8. No one participating in the City's elections was subject to intimidation or harassment in the course of exercising their right to participate in the political process. The City engaged in other constructive efforts to avoid intimidation or harassment in City elections, such as by recruiting a diverse group of poll officials for elections in the City. 
9. All voter registration and all City elections were conducted solely by the City's Electoral Board and the City's Voting Registrar.  There was evidence of other constructive efforts, such as expanded opportunities for convenient registration and voting for every person of voting age, as well as the appointment of minority persons as election officials throughout the jurisdiction and at all stages of the election and registration process.  The percentage of black poll workers in the City in the 2010 election (21%) slightly exceeded the black share of the City's 2010 voting age population (19.2%). 
10. The City did not engage in violations of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State or political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting on account of race or color. 
11. The City publicized its intent to commence the declaratory judgment action and seek a settlement by placing advertisements in local newspapers, in the appropriate post offices, and in various public places throughout the City, such as City Hall, the Office of Voter Registration, and the City's website.  

The Court issued a declaratory judgment that the City was entitled to a bailout under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and granted the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree, thereby exempting the City from the preclearance procedures of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The Court closed the case and placed it on its inactive docket.  The Court retained jurisdiction over the case for ten years (August 31, 2021).  There was no further activity in the case after the Court entered the Consent Judgment and Decree.  In 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which determined that the coverage provisions of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act were unconstitutional because they were based on outdated data.  While the Supreme Court did not decide that Section 5 was unconstitutional, without Section 4(b), Section 5 no longer had any practical effect.  In essence, Shelby County v. Holder made the Consent Decree and Judgment in City of Bedford moot. 

The case is now closed.