Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

667 F.2d 25

Docket No. 81-7068.

Hughley v. Adams

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1982-02-01

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 2002

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on McDaniel v. Sanchez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by William Homer Thornberry · Decided 1982-02-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Christopher Coates, Laughlin McDonald, Neil Bradley, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

¶2Bridges, Connell & Snow, Richard T. Bridges, Alan W. Connell, Thomaston, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

¶3Before THORNBERRY *, FAY and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.

¶5THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

¶6Plaintiffs filed this voting rights action on February 20, 1980, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the method for electing the Pike County (Georgia) Board of Education. Following a three-judge district court hearing and a district court trial, the parties agreed that the two laws governing the school board elections were unenforceable. The district court therefore requested redistricting proposals from the parties and, in its Order and Memorandum Opinion of September 23, 1981, adopted the plan submitted by the defendant school board. The district court, however, not having the benefit of the Supreme *26Court’s decision in McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 68 L.Ed.2d 724 (1981), did not submit the plan to the Justice Department for preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Because McDaniel v. Sanchez clearly requires preclearance of the plan adopted by the district court,1 we remand the case in order to allow submission of the plan to the Justice Department. We also decline, for reasons of ripeness, to consider plaintiffs’ remaining objections to the plan before it has received preclearance.

¶7REMANDED.

/667/f2d/25 · .json · Public domain