Case: Bedford County, Virginia v. Holder

The County of Bedford, Virginia is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including the "preclearance" provisions of Section 5, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.  This was based on a coverage determination made under Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act.  Under Section 5, the County, and all of its political subdivisions, including the Bedford County School Board, are 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 County, 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 political subdivision meets the eligibility requirements.  

On March 8, 2011, the County 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 County also requested a three-judge panel to hear the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973b.  The County was represented by two attorneys, J. Gerald Herbert, an attorney in private practice and C. Carl Boggess, the County Attorney for Bedford County.  Defendants were Eric H. Holder, the Attorney General for the United States, and Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice. On March 11, 2011, Judge David B. Sentelle, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, designated a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson of the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.  

According to the 2010 Census, Bedford County had a total population of 68,676 persons, of whom 62,035 (90.3%) were non-Hispanic white, 4,162 were non-Hispanic black (6.1%), 1,090 (1.6%) were Hispanic and 843 (1.2%) were Asian.  According to the 201 Census, Bedford County had a voting age population of 53,371, of whom 48,649 (91.2%) were non-0Hispanic white, 3,162 (5.9%) were non-Hispanic black, 662 (1.2%) were Hispanic and 499 (0.9%) were Asian.  Beford County is governed by a seven-member County Board of Supervisors.  The seven-member Board of Supervisors is elected from seven, single-member districts.  In the ten years prior to the filing of the declaratory judgment action, only one black candidate ran for public office in Bedford County, and that candidate was the only black citizen to have ever served on the Board of Supervisors.  In the ten years prior to the filing of the case, approximately five of the ninety-five (5.3%) Board-appointed officials serving on various County boards and commissions were black citizens.  There were no black members of the School Board, and no black candidates ran for the School Board in the ten years prior to the filing of the case.  A three-member Electoral Board oversees elections in Bedford County.  There were no black members of the County Electoral Board in the ten years prior to the filing of the case.  The Electoral Board nominates poll workers for elections in Bedford County.  Polling place Chiefs, also nominated by the Electoral Board, decide whether poll workers will be called to work. In the ten years prior to the complaint, the Electoral Board appointed one black person as a polling place Chief, and four black citizens to work as Assistant Chiefs in various elections.  Data showed that minority citizens have comprised between 3.7% and 7.3% of all poll officials in elections conducted over the five years before the complaint was filed.  

Bedford County does not record the race of its voters, but data showed that a significant portion of the County's voting-age population was registered to vote.  As of April 2010, 88.4% of the County's voting age population was registered to vote.  Voter registration had increased 34.9% from 2000 to 2011. Voter turnout varied depending on the type of election held.  For the presidential elections in 2004 and 2008, turnout ranged from 76.1% to 77.9%.  For the three most recent statewide elections for Governor before the complaint was filed, turnout ranged from 47.8% to 53.4%.  Voter registration opportunities and opportunities to fully and equally participate in the County's political process were readily and equally available to all citizens.  The Bedford County Voting Registrar conducted voter registration outreach to offer the opportunity for more Bedford County residents to apply to register to vote, including working with three local high schools to register students who are eighteen or who will be eighteen by the November general election.  

Before it filed its lawsuit, the County contacted the United States Department of Justice and provided it with information demonstrating the County's qualifications for bailout. The Department of Justice conducted its own investigation, which included consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including the views of minority citizens in the County and surrounding areas, and the absence of racial discrimination in the electoral process within the County.  Based on its investigation, the Department concluded that the County met the requirements for bailout.  On July 27, 2011, the County and the Department jointly moved the Court for entry of a Consent Judgment and Decree approving the County's bailout from the preclearance requirements of Section 5.  

On August 30, 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 County of Bedford had been denied the right to vote on account of race or color.
2. No final judgment was entered by any court determining that the County denied or abridged the right to vote on account of race or color.
3. No Federal examiners or observers were assigned to the County.
4. The County and the School Board made nineteen preclearance submissions to the Attorney General. The Attorney General did not object to any of the County's submissions, and there was no evidence that the County 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 County 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 denials had occurred.
6. The Attorney General did not interpose any objections to voting changes submitted by or behalf of the County for administrative review under Section 5.  The County never sought judicial preclearance under Section 5 so the Court never denied the Court a declaratory judgment under Section 5.
7. The County did not employ methods of election which inhibited or diluted equal access to the electoral process.
8. No one participating in the County's elections was subject to intimidation or harassment in the course of exercising their right to participate in the political process. The County engaged in other constructive efforts to avoid intimidation or harassment in County elections, such as by appointing a more diverse group of poll officials for elections in the County. 
9. All voter registration and all County elections were conducted solely by the Electoral Board and Voting Registrar.  There was evidence of constructive efforts by the Board and Registrar, such as expanded opportunities for convenient registration and voting for every person of voting age, as well as the appointment of minority persons to serve as poll officials. 
10. The County 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 County 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 County and the County's website.  

The Court issued a declaratory judgment that the County 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 County 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 30, 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 no practical effect.  In essence, Shelby County v. Holder made the Consent Decree and Judgment in Bedford County moot.