Escambia County, Florida v. Millan

• Decision Date: 27 March 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-1295,82-1295
• Citation: 466 U.S. 48,80 L.Ed.2d 36,104 S.Ct. 1577
• Parties: ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al. v. Henry T. McMILLAN et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

466 U.S. 48

104 S.Ct. 1577

80 L.Ed.2d 36

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.

v Henry T. McMILLAN et al.

No. 82-1295.

March 27, 1984.

Charles S. Rhyme argued the cause for appellants.

Larry T. Menefee argued the cause for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents questions as to the appropriate standards of proof and appropriate remedy in suits that allege a violation of voting rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not reach these questions, however, as it appears that the judgment under review may rest alternately upon a statutory ground of decision.

I

Appellees, black voters of Escambia County, Florida, filed suit in the District Court, alleging that the at-large system for electing the five members of the Board of County Commissioners violated appellees' rights under the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(1), and the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq.¹ Appellees contended that the at-large system operated to "dilute" their voting strength. See, e.g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 616-617, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 3275-3276, 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982).

The District Court entered judgment for appellees. That court found that the at-large system used by the County discriminated against black voters and had been retained at least in part for discriminatory purposes. The court concluded that the system violated appellees' rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act. The District Court ordered that the five commissioners be elected from single-member districts.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding that the at-large election system violated the Fourteenth Amendment and that the District Court's remedy was appropriate.² As the finding of a Fourteenth Amendment violation was adequate to support the District Court's judgment, the Court of Appeals did not review the District Court's conclusion that the at-large system also violated the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.³ Id., at 961, n. 2.

We noted probable jurisdiction, --- U.S. ---, 103 S.Ct. 1766, 76 L.Ed.2d 341 (1983).⁴

II

This appeal presents the question whether the evidence of discriminatory intent in the record before the District Court was adequate to support the finding that the at-large system violated the Fourteenth Amendment. We decline to decide this question. As the Court of Appeals noted, the District Court's judgment rested alternately upon the Voting Rights Act. See 688 F.2d, at 961 n. 2; Juris. Statement 101a. Moreover, the 1982 amendments to that Act, Pub.L. No. 97-205, § 3, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b),⁵ were not before the Court of Appeals. Affirmance on the statutory ground would moot the constitutional issues presented by the case. It is a well established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court's jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Justice Brandeis, concurring).

The parties have not briefed the statutory question, and, in any event, that question should be decided in the first in- stance by the Court of Appeals. We conclude, therefore, that the proper course is to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court for consideration of the question whether the Voting Rights Act provides grounds for affirmance of the District Court's judgment.⁶

It is so ordered.

Justice BLACKMUN, while joining the Court's per curiam opinion, would disallow costs in this case.

Justice MARSHALL, dissenting.

Contrary to appellants' contention,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not invalidate Article VIII, § 1(e) of the Florida Constitution, which generally requires county commissioners to be elected at-large. Rather, the Court of Appeals merely affirmed the District Court's finding that the Escambia County Commissioners refused to exercise certain powers with which they were invested by the state constitution ² in order to maintain, for racially discriminatory purposes, an at-large voting scheme that drastically diluted the political strength of Negro voters. See McMillan v. Escambia County, Fla., 688 F.2d 960, 969 (CA5 1982). Because the Court of Appeals did not invalidate any state law, consideration of this case as an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) is clearly improper. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., --- U.S. ---, ---, 104 S.Ct. 615, 620, 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984); Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, --- U.S. ---, ---, 103 S.Ct. 948, 953, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (statutes authorizing appeals are to be strictly construed). Consequently, appellants' jurisdictional statement must be treated as a petition for certiorari. So treated, I believe that the petition should be denied. The holding below falls squarely within applicable constitutional standards and raises no issues warranting this Court's attention. In sum, I would hold that appellants cannot properly invoke this Court's appellate jurisdiction and that their jurisdictional statement, considered as a petition for certiorari, should be dismissed as improvidently granted.

I respectfully dissent.

¹ Defendants named in the suit were Escambia County, the Board of County Commissioners and its individual members, and the County Supervisor of Elections. Only former and present individual members of the Board are now before the Court as appellants. See n. 4, infra.

² The Court of Appeals initially had reversed the District Court's judgment. The Court of Appeals had found, under this Court's decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980), that claims of "vote dilution" were not cognizable under the Fifteenth Amendment or the Voting Rights Act and that the evidence of discriminatory intent was insufficient to demonstrate a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 638 F.2d 1239 (CA5 1981). After this Court decided Rogers v. Lodge, supra, the Court of Appeals granted appellees' petition for rehearing and reversed its judgment on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. 688 F.2d 960 (CA5 1982). The Court of Appeals concluded, in light of Rogers, that the District Court's findings as to the discriminatory effects and purposes of the at-large system were not "clearly erroneous." Id., at 969.

3 The Court of Appeals vacated its first opinion, see supra n. 2, that had considered questions under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. 688 F.2d, at 961. Reconsideration of these grounds for relief on the petition for rehearing would have further delayed decision of the case, because appellants had not had an opportunity to brief the questions raised by Congress' recent amendment of the Voting Rights Act, see infra, at 51

4 Appellees move to dismiss on the grounds that no proper appellants are before the Court. The Board of County Commissioners itself has voted to dismiss the appeal. Aside from the two present commissioners who dissented from this vote, several former commissioners, who lost their seats in the subsequent court-ordered election, remain before the Court. Contrary to appellees' contention, the former commissioners were not automatically dismissed as appellants when they left office, and the Jurisdictional Statement did not limit them to participation in the appeal in their "official capacity." Juris. Statement 1. Appellees have not suggested that the appeal is moot as to the issues of liability or that appellants...