Case: City of Salem, Virginia v. Gonzales

This is a case about a political subdivision seeking an exemption from coverage under the Voting Rights Act. On May 25, 2006, the City of Salem (the "City" or the "plaintiff") in the Commonwealth of Virginia filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff sued the then-Attorney General of the United States and  the then-Assistant Attorney General, under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the "Act"). Represented by counsel, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief exempting the City from coverage under the Voting Rights Act, claiming that the City met the parameters for an exemption under Section 4 of the Act.

As a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the plaintiff was subject to certain remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including Section 5 of the Act. Under Section 5 of the Act, known as the "preclearance" provisions, covered jurisdictions, including the plaintiff, were required to seek and obtain preclearance from either the United States District Court or the United States Attorney General of any change affecting voting, and such preclearance must be obtained prior to implementation. However, the Act allowed political subdivisions which were subject to these special provisions of the Act to exempt themselves from coverage under the Act's special remedial provisions if they could satisfy standards established in the Voting Rights Act. This exemption process was known as “bailout." Under Section 4 of the Act, States or political subdivisions were entitled to declaratory judgment from the court granting an exemption from the Act's special remedial provisions if, during the ten years preceding the filing of the action: 

A) no test or device has been used either for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, within the State or political subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment;
B) no final judgment has been entered by any court determining that the political subdivision has denied or abridged the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group;
C) no Federal examiners have been assigned to the political subdivision;
D) all governmental units within the political subdivision have complied with the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.1973c; and
E) the Attorney General has not interposed any objection to any proposed voting change within the political subdivision and no declaratory judgment has been denied with regard to such a change by this Court under Section 5.

Section 4 also required States or political subdivisions to show that during the pendency of the declaratory judgment action seeking such exemption: 

A) Any voting procedure or method of election within the state or political subdivision exists which inhibits or dilutes equal access to the electoral process has been eliminated;
B) Constructive efforts have been made by the political subdivision to eliminate any intimidation or harassment of persons exercising rights under the Voting Rights Act; and
C) Expanded opportunities for convenient registration and voting exists within the State or political subdivision.

The City of Salem met each of the requirements as set forth in Section 4 of the Act. As articulated in the complaint:

• The voting age population of the City, according to the 2000 census, was 19,434. Of this number, 1,966 (3.9%) were black and 407 (0.8%) \were Hispanic. At the time, there were a total of 10 polling locations (and an additional central absentee voting location) located conveniently to voters across the City. The City did not collect or maintain voter registration data by race. However, a significant
  proportion of the City’s voting age population was registered to vote, and this number was increasing over the last few decades.
• Over the years before this action, the City had made numerous submissions to the Department of Justice seeking preclearance of voting changes under Section 5 of the Act and the Attorney General approved every one of those changes. No objection was interposed by the Department of Justice to any voting change in the City, and the Attorney General concluded that each of the voting changes were free of a racially discriminatory purpose or effect.
• Voter registration opportunities in the City were readily and equally available to all citizens and no person in the City had been denied the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in language group for at least the preceding ten years.
• There was one Black member of the three-person Electoral Board and two black citizens working in the voter registration office. Further, one member of the Salem City School Board was black at the time, and so was the City's Chairman of the Planning Commission, and the Director of the City's Planning and Development Office. The percentage of black poll workers in the City roughly aligned with the low percentage of the City’s black voting age population (3.9%).
• No "test or device" had been used in the City as a prerequisite to either registering or voting at least the preceding ten years. 
• The City had never been the subject of any lawsuit in which it was alleged that someone was denied the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
• No voting practices or procedures hac been abandoned by the City or challenged on the grounds that such practices or procedures would have either the purpose or the effect of denying the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
• The City had not employed any voting procedures or methods of election that inhibited or diluted equal access to the electoral process by minority voters in the City.
• Minority voters in the City were not being denied an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice to the City Council.
• Federal examiners had never been appointed or assigned to the City.
• There were no known incidents in the City where any person exercising his or her right to vote had been intimidated or harassed at the polls (or while attempting to register to vote).

Finally, as required by the Act, the City publicized the intended commencement of this action in the media serving the City, and in the appropriate U.S. post offices. 

Also on June 25, 2006, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to convene a three-judge panel because per Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, a three-judge court is required to hear and determine the action. The court granted the motion on May 31, 2006. On June 23, 2006, both parties jointly filed a motion for entry of consent judgment and decree. Both parties agreed that a bailout was appropriate and requested the court to grant one to the plaintiff. Along with the motion for entry of a consent judgement and decree, the parties jointly filed a stipulation of facts, whereby they repeated the same facts outlined above contained in the complaint. 

On July 27, 2006, the court granted the parties' motion, and the City of Salem was exempt from coverage pursuant to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.