Case: United States v. Georgetown County School District South Carolina

The main issue in this case is whether an at-large method of electing members of a school district’s Board of Education dilutes the African American vote, in violation of Sections 2 and 12(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”).  

The Georgetown County School District had always used an at-large method of electing the Board of Education (the “Board”). Census data from the 2000 Census demonstrated that African Americans made up 38.6% of the total population of Georgetown County, South Carolina (the “County”) and 34.1% of the total voting age population of the County. However, white voters were able to defeat every African American-preferred African American candidate since the 2002 election because of racially polarized voting patterns in the County. Moreover, the African American population was large and geographically compact enough that a single-member district plan could be drawn to allow African American citizens to constitute a majority of the total population and voting age population in three districts, but the County maintained at-large elections. 

On March 14, 2008, the United States Attorney General filed an action against the Georgetown County School District, pursuant to Sections 2 and 12(d) of the VRA, in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff alleged that under the totality of the circumstances, the at-large voting method diluted the strength of the African American vote, in violation of Section 2. The plaintiff moved for the court to: (1) declare that the at-large method of voting violated Section 2; (2) enjoin the defendants from conducting at-large elections; (3) order an election system that complies with Section 2; and (4) order additional relief as the interests of justice required.

On March 21, 2008, the parties entered into a consent decree in which the court enjoined the defendants from conducting at-large elections. The court also held: (1) the defendants must adopt a Section 2-compliant plan before the November 2008 election; (2) defendants must implement the plan under the court’s timeline; (3) two current Board members would be the designated at-large Board members, with all the rest converting to single-member district seats; (4) defendants must cooperate with the legislative delegation in the passage of legislation for the new election system for the Board; (5) state laws will continue to govern Board elections; (6) defendants must comply with Section 2 and applicable constitutional standards and a revised district map or method of election shall be submitted to the Attorney General for review; (7) twenty days after the decree, Defendants must submit preclearance under Section 5 of the VRA to the Attorney General; (8) the court will retain jurisdiction over the matter to enforce the provisions of the Decree and for further relief; and (9) each party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees.  

The case closed on March 21, 2008.