trial court, sub nom Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Matthews, 562 F. 2d 915
(4th Cir. 1977). Judge Craven, however, had died after approving the majority opinion,
but without seeing the concurring and dissenting opinions. The Fourth Circuit then
reconsidered the effect of Craven's death, and, finding that his vote should not be
counted, withdrew its original opinion and upheld the district court by an evenly divided
court. 571 F. 2d 1273 (4th Cir. 1978) cert den. 439 U.S. 862 (1978).

212.     430F. Supp. 118(1977).

213.     43 F.R. 6658 (Feb. 1978). These regulations were not binding because not adopted under
the Administrative Procedures Act. The time period within which to promulgate
guidelines as required in the Adams order was too short for the agency to follow the
statutory procedures for notice and comment.

214.	369 U.S. 186(1962).

215.	377 U.S. 533(1964).

216.	234 F. Supp. 945 (D. Md. 1964), affd 352 F. 2d 123 (4th Cir. 1965)

217.	Ellis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 267 F. Supp. 263 (D. Md. 1967).

218.	383 U.S. 301(1966).

219.	400 U.S. 112 (1970) under Congressional power to enforce the fifteenth amendment.

220.	Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973).

221.     In City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975), the Court held that an

annexation of an area with proportionately more white voters than were in the city prior
to annexation did not have the effect of abridging the right to vote of city residents on
account of race where through the use of districts black voters were not under-represented
in proportion to their population in the total city area. The Court remanded the case for a
determination on invidious purpose, since it was possible that the purpose of the
annexation was to create a white voting majority for the city as a whole.

222.     425 U.S. 130(1976).

223.     430 U.S. 144(1977).

224.     Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980). Powell, Rehnquist and Stewart dissented.
Powell dissented on the grounds that the local jurisdiction should be able to avoid
coverage under section 5 by demonstrating that it had never discriminated although the
state of which it was a part had not made such a showing. Rehnquist and Stewart based
their dissent on constitutional grounds, arguing that Congress had no power to impose §5

228