JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES AFFIRMATIVE DECISION
IN VOTING RIGHTS CASE

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice today announced that it has prevailed in a lawsuit filed against Charleston County, South Carolina in a voting rights case.

Judge Patrick Michael Duffy of the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled that the at-large method of election for the nine-member Charleston County Council dilutes the voting strength of black citizens, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Only one black elected official serves on Charleston's nine-member council even though black citizens make up over one-third of Charleston County's population, and only three black officials have ever served on the county council.

In the lawsuit, the United States did not claim that the at-large system was intentionally discriminatory, but only that it has discriminatory results.

In his opinion Judge Duffy stated, "[t]he current at-large system, as it exists in a county of this size, unlawfully exacerbates the disadvantaged political posture inherited by generations of African-Americans through centuries of institutional discrimination."

"This is a victory for the citizens of Charleston, and one that further demonstrates our commitment to enforcing vigorously those rights enjoyed by all Americans under the Voting Rights Act," said Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

In concluding that at-large elections in Charleston County diluted the voting strength of minority voters and are illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Judge Duffy pointed to a number of factors. These include:

• racially polarized voting in the county that has resulted in the systematic defeat of candidates preferred by black voters;
• the low number of black candidates elected to countywide office;
• the depressed socio-economic status of the minority community in Charleston in comparison with the white community, which hinders the ability of minority citizens to participate effectively in the political process; and,
• the history of official discrimination against blacks in Charleston County, though there are no signs of intentional official discrimination today.

Charleston County defended the at-large method of election by claiming that black candidates lost elections for the county council because of political partisanship, not race. However, Judge Duffy did not accept this explanation for racially polarized voting in the county or for the low number of black officials who have been elected to the council. The court will now consider the parties' submissions as to an appropriate remedial plan.

Additional information about the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws is available on the Department of Justice website at www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/index.htm.

###

03-142