McCain v. Lybrand

PETITIONER: McCain
RESPONDENT: Lybrand
LOCATION: Board of Immigration Appeals

DOCKET NO.: 82-282
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 465 US 236 (1984)
ARGUED: Oct 31, 1983
DECIDED: Feb 21, 1984

ADVOCATES:
Barbara E. Etkind - as Amicus Curiae
Karen LeCraft Henderson - on behalf of the Appellees
Laughlin McDonald - on behalf of the Appellants

Facts of the case

Question

Media for McCain v. Lybrand

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 31, 1983 in McCain v. Lybrand

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - February 21, 1984 in McCain v. Lybrand

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion in McCain against Lybrand will be announced by Justice Stevens.

John Paul Stevens:

This case presents a question under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which has been amended several times since then. Edgefield County, South Carolina is a jurisdiction that's subject to the provisions of that statute and the statute requires that such a jurisdiction when it makes a change in election practices must submit the change either to the Attorney General of the United States or to a three-judge District Court here in the District of Columbia for approval before the change may become effective.

Most frequently covered jurisdictions will follow the procedure of submission to the Attorney General.

In 1966, South Carolina adopted a statute that changed the practices in Edgefield County, but neither the State nor the county submitted the change for approval.

In 1971 however, another statute was adopted and that statute was submitted and ultimately was approved by the Attorney General.

And in connection with the approval, the -- the earlier 1966 statute was called to the attention of the Attorney General and the question that arises is whether the 1971 approval embodied approval of the earlier statute.

A three-judge District Court in South Carolina held that it was implicitly approved.

We reverse that holding today because the submission to the Attorney General in 1971 did not call his attention of the fact that there had been a change in 1966 and the 1966 changed itself was never submitted for approval, so we reverse the judgment of the District Court for South Carolina.

The opinion -- I should say Justice Blackmun, Justice Powell and Justice Rehnquist have concurred in the judgment but not joined in the opinion which is otherwise unanimous.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Justice Stevens.