probable jurisdiction was noted,

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Alabama's police jurisdiction law. It first decided that this was not a voting rights case, and that therefore the statute would not need to be justified by a compelling state interest. The court then found the statute rational, holding that it was a permissible state experiment in local governance.

Alabama's police jurisdiction statute, enacted
in 1907, was a rational legislative response
to the problems faced by the state's burgeoning

cities.

1. 439 U.S. at 75.

Tuscaloosa County, Alabama: League of Women Voters of Alabama v. Renfro, 290 So.2d 167 (1974).

In 1971, the State of Alabama enacted a local law applying to Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, which required, among other things that the Board of Registrars "shall" meet on one Saturday per month during October through January "for the

purpose of registering voters."1 The Act also provided that

registration could be accomplished either "at the courthouse or at any other location designated by the board of registrars."2 The Board, however, refused to conduct any Saturday registration. The League of Women Voters, concerned about the

་

restrictions on opportunities for voter registration, particularly of blacks and daily wage earners in Tuscaloosa County, brought suit against the Board to require it to conduct registration on Saturdays. Since the suit sought to enforce a state law, the complaint was filed in the state court. The state courts, however, turned a deaf ear to the plaintiffs, consistent with the traditional lack of sensitivity by local courts to the problems of minority voters.

P. 2454.

1. Act No. 1428, Acts of Alabama 1971, Vol. III,

2. Ibid.

The trial court held that the Board was not required

by law to remain open on Saturdays.1 The plaintiffs appealed.

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed, announcing as a general proposition that: "In ascertaining the legislative intent it is necessary to be mindful that a thing may be within the letter of a statute, but not within the meaning; or within the meaning, but not within the letter."2 Warming to its task, the court concluded that registration was not required to be held on Saturdays because another local act applying only to Tuscaloosa, and enacted in 1959, allowed the county governing authority to close the courthouse one day each week (aside from Sundays). The county had obviously decided to close the courthouse on Saturday. Finding that to conduct registration out

side the courthouse "would be expensive and require additional personnel," the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the general statute enacted twelve years earlier superceded the 1971

statute that specifically called for registration to be conducted on Saturdays. It therefore affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

168 (1974).

1. League of Women Voters v. Renfro, 290 So.2d 167,

Alabama Democratic and Republican Parties: MacGuire v. Amos, 343 F.Supp. 119 (M.D.Ala. 1972) (three-judge court) and Vance v. United States (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 1972, No. 1529-72) (threejudge court).

The Democratic and Republican parties of Alabama implemented new rules for the conduct of the May 2, 1972 elections of delegates to their national conventions. The rules involved the constriction of geographical voting districts from which candidates ran for convention seats.

Since the boundaries of districts can be gerrymandered along racial lines, black residents of the state requested both parties to submit the new rules for pre-clearance under §5 to insure that they did not have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race. The parties refused, contending that they were political parties, bot state or political subdivisions, and thus were not covered by $5.

The plaintiffs filed suit in April, 1972, requesting a declaratory judgment that §5 is applicable to rules promulgated by political parties. On May 13, 1972, the court granted the relief sought in the first such ruling by a court in the Fifth Circuit: "if a state could escape the requisites of section 5 by channeling to political parties its authority to regulate primary elections, the force of the Voting Rights Act in the context of primaries would be entirely abrograted."l

1. MacGuire v. Amos, 343 F.Supp. 119, 121 (M.D.Ala.

The changes were required to be pre-cleared.1

Plaintiffs had also asked that the May 2nd elections be enjoined, or set aside. The court declined to grant that relief, giving its decision prospective application only. The Democratic Party thereafter filed suit in the District of Columbia under Section 5 seeking pre-clearance of the new rules from that court.2 This was the first Section 5 lawsuit ever filed by a covered jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. The Attorney General, who is required to defend such suits brought against the United States under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §19731, did not oppose the Democratic Party's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Some of the plaintiffs in the prior suit sought to intervene to challenge the districting plan.

However, intervention was denied and judgment was entered for the Democratic Party.

1. Consistent with the scope of inquiry in proceedings to enforce §5, the court expressed no opinion whether the changes were actually objectional. Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379 (1971).

2. Vance v. United States, No. 1529-72 (D.D.C. November 30, 1972).