Mobile v. Bolden | |
---|---|
Argued March 19, 1979 Reargued October 29, 1979 Decided April 22, 1980 | |
Full case name | City of Mobile, Alabama, et al. v. Wiley L. Bolden, et al. |
Citations | 446 U.S. 55 (more) 100 S. Ct. 1490; 64 L. Ed. 2d 47 |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment for plaintiffs, 423 F. Supp. 384 (S.D. Ala. 1976); affirmed, 571 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1978), probable jurisdiction noted, 439 U.S. 815 (1978). |
Holding | |
Facially neutral electoral districting is constitutional, even if the at-large elections dilute the voting strength of black citizens. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Stewart, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist |
Concurrence | Blackmun (in result) |
Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
Dissent | Brennan |
Dissent | White |
Dissent | Marshall |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. XIV, XV; 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973 |
Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that disproportionate effects alone, absent purposeful discrimination, are insufficient to establish a claim of racial discrimination affecting voting.[1]
In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), which challenged new city boundaries that excluded virtually all black voters from Tuskegee, Alabama, the court had held that creating electoral districts which disenfranchised blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment.[2]