SUPREME COURT ASSURES BLACK VOTING RIGHTS
"...a surprising and hopeful victory..."
by Jo Campbell

---

The Supreme Court does not say exactly why it does what it does, according to Chris Brown, ACLU attorney who, with colleague Debbie Jeon, handled the NAACP/ACLU lawsuit.

I asked Chris if the early court finding that Worcester County had been in direct violation of the Voting Rights Act affected the Supreme Court's decision. Is this possible? I wondered.

"They don't tell you what they are doing," he replied. "You don't know; you can only guess, but early in June of course they ruled against reapportionment plans for Texas and North Carolina, and in doing so indicated that they would be very loathe to permit race to be considered when drawing district maps."

Chris said that he thinks their ruling in the Worcester County case signifies that when there has been a competent and accurate finding of racial discrimination that has affected the electoral process, then and only then race can be used to determine voting district formation.

"... I think our case stands for the fact that if you have that finding, then race is a ... basis on which to make judgments.

"So that is the signal that our case is sending to lawyers and plaintiffs around the country."

I asked him if he thought that this result in our case might encourage others to make a new effort in other states.

"Well, what they have to do now in North Carolina and Texas is ... for example, in North Carolina there was a finding that there was discrimination in one part of the state, but the legislature then changed something in another part of the state so that there wasn't any causal link between them; the problem and the remedy.

"But, I think the Court's action in our case gives hope to other African-Americans that the door is not shut. It is a surprising and hopeful victory in the sense that it was looking very glum for a while... Sandra Day O'Connor... was not going to go so far as to rule against us in Worcester County."

According to Chris Brown, "The African-Americans had to wait more than 250 years before getting full access to the county's election system.

"But with Jim Purnell's victory in November and the Supreme Court's decision in June, African-American access is now fully realized."

The background story is not an unfamiliar one. True, the 21st Century is nearly here, but this Eastern Shore County in Maryland enjoyed the 19th Century so much, that it had to be dragged forcibly through the courts into the 20th. The trauma has been sad to watch.

Leaders in the African-American community sought with considerable patience through the years to bring the majority community to the table for discussions of an equitable voting process. Under the old system, candidates had to run residentially from a specific district, but were politically "at-large" and therefore needed to campaign throughout the County. This favored anyone with plenty of money, plenty of time away from the job and plenty of powerful pals. The invitations to change were refused, of course. The old way worked beautifully for the whites in power -- all males until 1990.

Then, nearly three years ago the black voters of Worcester County gave up on pleasantry, and challenged the County's at-large election system under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On January 7, 1994, the district court ruled that the at-large voting system, indeed, diluted minority voting strength so as to thwart black voters from electing a County Commissioner of their choice.

After the District Court's initial ruling, the case ran through two full appeals to the Fourth Circuit, as the County Commissioners fought to maintain the racially discriminatory election system.

The taxpayers of Worcester County are going to pay more than one million dollars for this folly, most of it being paid to a "specialist" attorney from Mississippi. Many have groused about the expenditure in reader editorials, but there are silent ones who agreed with the white-supremacy effort. These gave undercover impetus to the County Commissioners who kept the suit going. Interestingly, they blamed the expenditure on the NAACP and the ACLU, despite the original finding by the court that the County was in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Blame the victim, right?

The winning side in Worcester County, rejoicing in the "surprising and hopeful victory" hopes it may inspire the now-deprived southern districts to plan future actions in the realistic hope that "...the door is not shut."