author: Justice Rehnquist

text:
    WEINBERGER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. v. ROSSI et al.
    No. 80-1924.
    Argued February 22, 1982
    Decided March 31, 1982

      Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court.

      Barbara E. Etkind argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General McGrath, Deputy Solicitor General Getter, William, G. Ranter, and Freddi Lipstein.

      Randy M. Mott argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Raymond J. Rasenberger, Charles J. Simpson, Jr., J. Stanley Pottinger, Warren L. Dennis, and Carolyn Dye.

       Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Mark D. Roth for the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al; and by Cornelius B. Kennedy for Congressman William V. Chappel, Jr., et al.

   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 106 of Pub. L. 92-129, 85 Stat. 355, note following 5 U. S. C. §7201 (1976 ed., Supp. IV), prohibits employment discrimination against United States citizens on military bases overseas unless permitted by “treaty.” The question in this case is whether “treaty” includes executive agreements concluded by the President with the host country, or whether the term is limited to those international agreements entered into by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate pursuant to Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution. This issue is solely one of statutory interpretation.

I

In 1944, Congress authorized the President, “by such means as he finds appropriate,” to acquire, after negotiation with the President of the Philippines, military bases “he may deem necessary for the mutual protection of the Philippine Islands and of the United States.” 58 Stat. 626, 22 U. S. C. § 1392. Pursuant to this statute, the United States and the Republic of the Philippines in 1947 entered into a 99-year Military Bases Agreement (MBA), Mar. 14, 1947, 61 Stat. 4019, T. I. A. S. No. 1775. The MBA grants the United States the use of various military facilities in the Philippines. It does not, however, contain any provisions regarding the employment of local nationals on the base. In 1968, the two nations negotiated a Base Labor Agreement (BLA), May 27, 1968, [1968] 19 U. S. T. 5892, T. I. A. S. No. 6542, as a supplement to the MBA. The BLA, inter alia, provides for the preferential employment of Filipino citizens at United States military facilities in the Philippines.

In 1971, Congress enacted § 106 of Pub. L. 92-129, the employment discrimination statute at issue in this case. At the time §106 was enacted, 12 agreements in addition to the BLA were in effect providing for preferential hiring of local nationals on United States military bases overseas. Since § 106 was enacted, four more such agreements have been concluded. None of these agreements were submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent pursuant to Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution.

In 1978, respondents, all United States citizens residing in the Philippines, were notified that their jobs at the United States Naval Facility at Subic Bay were being converted into local national positions in accordance with the BLA, and that they would be discharged from their employment with the Navy. After unsuccessfully pursuing an administrative remedy, respondents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the preferential employment provisions of the BLA violated, inter alia, § 106. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, Rossi v. Brown, 467 F. Supp. 960 (1979), but the Court of Appeals reversed. Rossi v. Brown, 206 U. S. App. D. C. 148, 642 F. 2d 553 (1980). We in turn reverse the Court of Appeals.

II

Simply because the question presented is entirely one of statutory construction does not mean that the question necessarily admits of an easy answer. Chief Justice Marshall long ago observed that “[wjhere the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes every thing from which aid can be derived .. . .” United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805). More recently, the Court has stated:

“Generalities about statutory construction help us little. They are not rules of law but merely axioms of experience. They do not solve the special difficulties in construing a particular statute. The variables render every problem of statutory construction unique.” United States v. Universal Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 221 (1952) (citations omitted).

We naturally begin with the language of § 106, which provides in relevant part as follows:

“Unless prohibited by treaty, no person shall be discriminated against by the Department of Defense or by any officer or employee thereof, in the employment of civilian personnel at any facility or installation operated by the Department of Defense in any foreign country because such person is a citizen of the United States or is a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.” 85 Stat. 355, note following 5 U. S. C. § 7201 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added).

The statute is awkwardly worded in the form of a double negative, and we agree with the Court of Appeals that “[r]e-placing the phrase ‘[ujnless prohibited by’ with either the words ‘unless permitted by’ or ‘unless provided by’ would convey more precisely the meaning of the statute, but we do not think that this awkward phrasing bears on congressional intent in selecting the word ‘treaty.’” 206 U. S. App. D. C., at 153, n. 21, 642 F. 2d, at 558, n. 21. Discrimination in employment against United States citizens at military facilities overseas is prohibited by § 106, unless such discrimination is permitted by a “treaty” between the United States and the host country. Our task is to determine the meaning of the word “treaty” as Congress used it in this statute. Congress did not separately define the word, as it has done in other enactments. Infra, at 30. We must therefore ascertain as best we can whether Congress intended the word “treaty” to refer solely to Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, “Treaties” — those international agreements concluded by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate — or whether Congress intended “treaty” to also include executive agreements' such as the BLA.

The word “treaty” has more than one meaning. Under principles of international law, the word ordinarily refers to an international agreement concluded between sovereigns, regardless of the manner in which the agreement is brought into force. 206 U. S. App. D. C., at 151, 642 F. 2d, at 556. Under the United States Constitution, of course, the word “treaty” has a far more restrictive meaning. Article II, § 2, cl. 2, of that instrument provides that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Congress has not been consistent in distinguishing between Art. II treaties and other forms of international agreements. For example, in the Case Act, 1 U. S. C. § 112b(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), Congress required the Secretary of State to “transmit to the Congress the text of any international agreement, . . . other than a treaty, to which the United States is a party” no later than 60 days after “such agreement has entered into force.” Similarly, Congress has explicitly referred to Art. II treaties in the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U. S. C. § 1801 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), and the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, 22 U. S. C. § 2551 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). On the other hand, Congress has used “treaty” to refer only to international agreements other than Art. II treaties. In 39 U. S. C. § 407(a), for example, Congress authorized the Postal Service, with the consent of the President, to “negotiate and conclude postal treaties or conventions.” A “treaty” which requires only the consent of the President is not an Art. II treaty. Thus it is not dispositive that Congress in § 106 used the term “treaty” without specifically including international agreements that are not Art. II treaties.

The fact that Congress has imparted no precise meaning to the word “treaty” as that term is used in its various legislative Acts was recognized by this Court in B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U. S. 583 (1912). There this Court construed “treaty” in § 5 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891, ch. 517, 26 Stat. 826, to include international agreements concluded by the President under congressional authorization. 224 U. S., at 601. The Court held that the word “treaty” in the jurisdictional statute extended to such an agreement, saying: “If not technically a treaty requiring ratification, nevertheless it was a compact authorized by the Congress of the United States, negotiated and proclaimed under the authority of its President. We think such a compact is a treaty under the Circuit Court of Appeals Act. . . .” Ibid.

The statute involved in the Altman case in no way affected the foreign policy of the United States, since it dealt only with the jurisdiction of this Court. In the case of a statute such as § 106, that does touch upon the United States’ foreign policy, there is even more reason to construe Congress’ use of “treaty” to include international agreements as well as Art. II treaties. At the time §106 was enacted, 13 executive agreements provided for preferential hiring of local nationals. Supra, at 27. Thus, if Congress intended to limit the “treaty exception” in § 106 to Art. II treaties, it must have intended to repudiate these executive agreements that affect the hiring practices of the United States only at its military bases overseas. One would expect that Congress would be aware that executive agreements may represent a quid pro quo: the host country grants the United States base rights in exchange, inter alia, for preferential hiring of local nationals. See n. 17, infra.

It has been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision in Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64, 118 (1804), that “an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains . . . In McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U. S. 10, 20-21 (1963), this principle was applied to avoid construing the National Labor Relations Act in a manner contrary to State Department regulations, for such a construction would have had foreign policy implications. The McCulloch Court also relied on the fact that the proposed construction would have been contrary to a “well-established rule of international law.” Id., at 21. While these considerations apply with less force to a statute which by its terms is designed to affect conditions on United States enclaves outside of the territorial limits of this country than they do to the construction of statutes couched in general language which are sought to be applied in an extraterritorial way, they are nonetheless not without force in either case.

At the time § 106 was enacted, there were in force 12 agreements in addition to the BLA providing for preferential hiring of local nationals on United States military bases overseas. Since the time of the enactment of § 106, four more such agreements have been concluded, and none of these were submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. Supra, at 27. We think that some affirmative expression of congressional intent to abrogate the United States’ international obligations is required in order to construe the word “treaty” in § 106 as meaning only Art. II treaties. We therefore turn to what legislative history is available in order to ascertain whether such an intent may fairly be attributed to Congress.

The legislative history seems to us to indicate that Congress was principally concerned with the financial hardship to American servicemen which resulted from discrimination against American citizens at overseas bases. As the Conference Committee Report explains:

“The purpose of [§ 106] is to correct a situation which exists at some foreign bases, primarily in Europe, where discrimination in favor of local nationals and against American dependents in employment has contributed to conditions of hardship for families of American enlisted men whose dependents are effectively prevented from obtaining employment.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-433, p. 31 (1971).

The Conference Report, however, is entirely silent as to the scope of the “treaty” exception. Similarly, there is no mention of the 13 agreements that provided for preferential hiring of local nationals. Thus, the Conference Report provides no support whatsoever for the conclusion that Congress intended in some way to limit the President’s use of international agreements that may discriminate against American citizens who seek employment at United States military bases overseas.

On the contrary, the brief congressional debates on this provision indicate that Congress was not concerned with limiting the authority of the President to enter into executive agreements with the host country, but with the ad hoc deci-sionmaking of military commanders overseas. In early 1971, Brig. Gen. Charles H. Phipps, Commanding General of the European Exchange System, issued a memorandum encouraging the recruitment and hiring of local nationals instead of United States citizens at the system’s stores. The hiring of local nationals, General Phipps reasoned, would result in lower wage costs and turnover rates. Senator Schweiker, a sponsor of § 106, complained of General Phipps’ policy.

Both the Conference Report and the debates indicate that Congress was concerned primarily about the economic hardships American servicemen endured in Europe, particularly Germany. In this regard, it must be noted that of the 13 executive agreements in existence at the time § 106 was enacted, only one involved an agreement with a European country — Iceland. The Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Regarding the Status of Their Forces, June 19, 1951, [1953] 4 U. S. T. 1792, T. I. A. S. No. 2846, merely provides that local law governs the terms and conditions of the employment of local nationals. It does not provide for preferential treatment for local nationals. Thus, those servicemen whose interests Congress expressly sought to further in § 106 were not subject to the type of agreement at issue in this case.

The Court of Appeals relied heavily on a statement by Senator Hughes, a sponsor of § 106, that dependents of enlisted personnel “are denied the opportunity to work on overseas bases, by agreement with the countries in which they are located, and are forced to live in poverty.” 117 Cong. Rec. 16126 (1971). Taken out of context, this remark is certainly supportive of respondents’ position. In context, however, it is not altogether clear to which “agreements” Senator Hughes was referring. Immediately prior to this remark, Senator Cook explained that dependents of American servicemen were unable to obtain anything but tourist visas, thus precluding them from working in the local economy:

“On my inquiry of the Defense Department, it was my understanding that there was an agreement, through the NATO organization, that those young wives, because they were there on tourists visas, could not get a work permit under any circumstances.” Ibid.

As we indicated above, the NATO agreements do not contain any provision for preferential hiring of local nationals. Supra, at 34. Senator Hughes could well have been referring to agreements that in effect precluded dependents from working in the local economy. Be that as it may, it suffices to say that one isolated remark by a single Senator, ambiguous in meaning when examined in context, is insufficient to establish the kind of affirmative congressional expression necessary to evidence an intent to abrogate provisions in 13 international agreements.

Finally, respondents rely on postenactment legislative history that “firmly reiterate[s] the Congressional policy against preferential hiring of local nationals.” Brief for Respondents 23. In particular, respondents offer two examples of congressional Committees urging the Department of Defense to renegotiate those agreements containing local-national preferential hiring provisions. Such post hoc statements of a congressional Committee are not entitled to much weight. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 118, and n. 13 (1980). If anything, these postenactment statements cut against respondents’ argument that Congress sought in § 106 to eliminate discrimination owing to executive agreements. By urging the Department of Defense to renegotiate these agreements, the Committees assume the validity of those very international agreements respondents contend were abrogated by Congress in § 106.

While the question is not free from doubt, we conclude that the “treaty” exception contained in § 106 extends to executive agreements as well as to Art. II treaties. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       This agreement has been amended periodically, most recently on January 7, 1979. [1978-1979] 30 U. S. T. 863, T. I. A. S. No. 9224.

       In relevant part, Article I of the BLA provides:
      “1. Preferential Employment. — The United States Armed Forces in the Philippines shall fill the needs for civilian employment by employing Filipino citizens, except when the needed skills are found, in consultation with the Philippine Department of Labor, not to be locally available, or when otherwise necessary for reasons of security or special management needs, in which cases United States nationals may be employed. . . .”

       Section 106 provides in pertinent part:

        “Unless prohibited by treaty, no person shall be discriminated against by the Department of Defense or by any officer or employee thereof, in the employment of civilian personnel at any facility or installation operated by the Department of Defense in any foreign country because such person is a citizen of the United States or is a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.” 85 Stat. 355, note following 5 U. S. C. § 7201 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added).

       Brief for Petitioners 5-6, and nn. 3-4.

       See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, Art. 2, ¶ 1(a), reprinted in 63 Am. J. Int’l L. 875, 876 (1969); Restatement of Foreign Relations of the United States, Introductory Note 3, p. 74 (Tent. Draft No. 1, Apr. 1, 1980) (“[I]nternational law does not distinguish between agreements designated as ‘treaties’ and other agreements”).

       We have recognized, however, that the President may enter into certain binding agreements with foreign nations without complying with the formalities required by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, even when the agreement compromises commercial claims between United States citizens and a foreign power. See, e. g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654 (1981); United States v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203 (1942); United States v. Belmont, 301 U. S. 324 (1937). Even though such agreements are not treaties under the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, they may in appropriate circumstances have an effect similar to treaties in some areas of domestic law.

       In this context, it is entirely logical that Congress should distinguish between Art. II treaties and other international agreements. Submission of Art. II treaties to the Senate for ratification is already required by the Constitution.

       Congress defined “treaty” to mean “any international fishery agreement which is a treaty within the meaning of section 2 of article II of the Constitution.” 16 U. S. C. § 1802(23).

       “[N]o action shall be taken under this chapter or any other law that will obligate the United States to disarm or to reduce or to limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States, except pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution or unless authorized by further affirmative legislation by the Congress of the United States.” 22 U. S. C. § 2573.

       See 117 Cong. Rec. 14395 (1971) (remarks of Sen. Schweiker).

       “I have never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life. We actually send our GI’s to Europe at poverty wages. We do not pay to send the wives there. They have to beg or borrow that money. They get over there, and if they do bring their wives at their own expense, the wives cannot even go to the Army Exchange Service and get a job, because a general has sent out a memorandum that says we are going to give those jobs to the nationals of the countries involved.” Ibid.

      At another point, Senator Schweiker commented: “Here is an American general saying that when the GI’s go to their canteen or service post exchange and spend their money, they do not even have the right to have their wives working there because we should give those jobs to German nationals.” Id., at 16128.

       See, e. g., id., at 14395 (remarks of Sen. Schweiker); id., at 16126 (remarks of Sen. Cook); ibid, (remarks of Sen. Hughes).

       Agreement Concerning the Status of United States Personnel and Property (Annex), May 8, 1951, United States-Iceland, [1951] 2 U. S. T. 1533, T. I. A. S. No. 2295.

       This NATO agreement is an Art. II treaty.

       The contemporaneous remarks of a sponsor of legislation are certainly not controlling in analyzing legislative history. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 118 (1980); Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 311 (1979).

       See H. R. Rep. No. 95-68, p. 25 (1977); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-410, p. 54 (1981).

       Although we do not ascribe it much weight, we note that a Conference Committee recently deleted a provision that would have prohibited the hiring of foreign nationals at military bases overseas when qualified United States citizens are available. Ibid. In urging this provision’s deletion, Senator Percy explained that the provision would place the United States in violation of its obligations, inter alia, under the BLA with the Philippines. 127 Cong. Rec. S14110 (Nov. 30, 1981). He argued:
      “Some host nations might view enactment of 777 as a material breach of our agreements, thus entitling them to open negotiations on terminating, redefining or further restricting U. S. basing and use rights. Nations could, for example, retaliate by suspending or reducing our current rights to engage in routine military operations such as aircraft transits.” Ibid.

       In view of its construction of § 106, the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to determine whether the BLA in the instant case violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). Rossi v. Brown, 206 U. S. App. D. C. 148, 156, n. 36, 642 F. 2d 553, 561, n. 36 (1980). Because this question was neither raised in the petition for certiorari nor reached by the Court of Appeals, we do not consider it.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    UPHAM et al. v. SEAMON et al.
    No. 81-1724.
    Decided April 1, 1982
   Per Curiam.

After the 1980 census, Texas’ congressional delegation increased from 24 to 27 members. A reapportionment plan, Senate Bill No. 1 (SB1), was enacted on August 14, 1981, and then submitted to the Attorney General for preclearance. While it was pending before him, suit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas challenging the constitutionality of SB1 and its validity under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973. A three-judge court was empaneled, held a hearing, and delayed any further action until after the Attorney General acted. On January 29, 1982, the Attorney General entered an objection to SB1. Specifically, he objected to the lines drawn for two contiguous districts in south Texas, Districts 15 and 27. He stated that the State “has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the submitted plan is nondiscriminatory in purpose and effect” with respect to the other 25 districts. In the face of this objection, which made SB1 unenforceable, and the obvious unconstitutionality of the prior apportionment plan, the court ordered the parties to provide written submissions along with maps, plats, and other data to aid the court in reaching a court-ordered reapportionment plan. A hearing was held on February 9. The court then proceeded to resolve the Attorney General’s objection to Districts 15 and 27. 536 F. Supp. 931. All other districts of the court’s plan, except for those in Dallas County, were identical to those of SB1. The court devised its own districts for Dallas County, and it is that part of the District Court’s judgment that is on appeal here. A stay and expedited consideration are requested.

Judge Sam Johnson and Judge Justice wrote separately, but agreed that SBl’s plan for Dallas County could not be implemented. Judge Justice alone determined that the SB1 plan for Dallas County was unconstitutional. In Judge Johnson’s view, since SB1 was a nullity, the entire plan had to be a court-ordered plan which must conform to § 5, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, standards, including the “no retrogression rule” of Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130 (1976). However, he thought that in two respects the standards applicable to court-ordered plans were stricter than those that must be observed by a legislature: population equality and racial fairness. Judicial application of the no retrogression standard, in his view, is limited to consideration of purely numerical factors; unlike a legislature, a court cannot consider the “innumerable political factors that may affect a minority group’s access to the political process.” 536 F. Supp., at 948. Although a court must defer to legislative judgments on reapportionment as much as possible, it is forbidden to do so when the legislative plan would not meet the special standards of population equality and racial fairness that are applicable to court-ordered plans.

SBl’s treatment of Dallas County failed to meet the test of racial fairness for a court-ordered plan. Under SB1, minority strength in District 5, in Dallas County, would have gone from 29.1 percent to 12.1 percent. Apparently, the minority votes had been shifted to District 24, which increased in minority population from 37.4 percent to 63.8 percent. Judge Johnson reasoned that this change would reduce minority effectiveness in District 5 substantially and would not guarantee a “safe” seat in District 24. This “would result in a severe retrogression in the Dallas County area.” Id., at 957, n. 39. He specifically recognized that SBl’s plans for Dallas County had been formulated in response to the interests expressed by minority voters in creating a “safe” seat. He did not hold this legislative response to be unconstitutional, nor did he criticize it as inconsistent with § 5 as it applied to legislative redistricting. A court, however, could not, in his view, consider the same factors as a legislature. The court, therefore, redrew the boundaries of Districts 5 and 24, and the two adjoining Districts, 3 and 26. Under the court-ordered plan, District 5 would have a minority population of 31.87 percent and District 24 would have 45.7 percent.

Appellants, who are Republican Party officials in Texas, contend that the District Court simply substituted its own reapportionment preferences for those of the state legislature and that this is inconsistent with Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U. S. 535 (1978); McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130 (1981); and White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783 (1973). They argue that in the absence of any objection to the Dallas County districts by the Attorney General, and in the absence of any finding of a constitutional or statutory violation with respect to those districts, a court must defer to the legislative judgments the plans reflect, even under circumstances in which a court order is required to effect an interim legislative apportionment plan. We agree and, therefore, summarily reverse.

The relevant principles that govern federal district courts in reapportionment cases are well established:

“From the beginning, we have recognized that ‘reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and that judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.’ We have adhered to the view that state legislatures have ‘primary jurisdiction’ over legislative reapportionment. . . . Just as a federal district court, in the context of legislative reapportionment, should follow the policies and preferences of the State, as expressed in statutory and constitutional provisions or in the reapportionment plans proposed by the state legislature, whenever adherence to state policy does not detract from the requirements of the Federal Constitution, we hold that a district court should similarly honor state policies in the context of congressional reapportionment. In fashioning a reapportionment plan or in choosing among plans, a district court should not pre-empt the legislative task nor ‘intrude upon state policy any more than necessary.’” White v. Weiser, 412 U. S., at 794-795 (citations omitted).

Weiser itself presents a good example of when such an intrusion is not necessary. We held there that the District Court erred when, in choosing between two possible court-ordered plans, it failed to choose that plan which most closely approximated the state-proposed plan. The only limits on judicial deference to state apportionment policy, we held, were the substantive constitutional and statutory standards to which such state plans are subject. Id., at 797.

We reached a similar conclusion in Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 160-161 (1971), in which we held that the District Court erred in fashioning a court-ordered plan that rejected state policy choices more than was necessary to meet the specific constitutional violations involved. Indeed, our decision in Whitcomb directly conflicts with the lower court’s order in this case. Specifically, we indicated that the District Court should not have rejected all multimember districts in the State, absent a finding that those multimember districts were unconstitutional. Ibid. We reached this conclusion despite the fact that we had previously held that “when district courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multimember districts as a general matter.” Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690, 692 (1971). See also Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 19 (1975) (indicating that court-ordered plans should, in some circumstances, defer to, or respect, a state policy of multimember districting).

It is true that this Court has held that court-ordered reapportionment plans are subject in some respects to stricter standards than are plans developed by a state legislature. Wise v. Lipscomb, supra, at 540; Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 414 (1977). This stricter standard applies, however, only to remedies required by the nature and scope of the violation: “The remedial powers of an equity court must be adequate to the task, but they are not unlimited.” Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra, at 161. We have never said that the entry of an objection by the Attorney General to any part of a state plan grants a district court the authority to disregard aspects of the legislative plan not objected to by the Attorney General. There may be reasons for rejecting other parts of the State’s proposal, but those reasons must be something other than the limits on the court’s remedial actions. Those limits do not come into play until and unless a remedy is required; whether a remedy is required must be determined on the basis of the substantive legal standards applicable to the State’s submission.

Whenever a district court is faced with entering an interim reapportionment order that will allow elections to go forward it is faced with the problem of “reconciling the requirements of the Constitution with the goals of state political policy.” Connor v. Finch, supra, at 414. An appropriate reconciliation of these two goals can only be reached if the district court’s modifications of a state plan are limited to those necessary to cure any constitutional or statutory defect. Thus, in the absence of a finding that the Dallas County reapportionment plan offended either the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, the District Court was not free, and certainly was not required, to disregard the political program of the Texas State Legislature.

Although the District Court erred, it does not necessarily follow that its plan should not serve as an interim plan governing the forthcoming congressional elections. The filing date for candidates, which was initially postponed by the District Court, has now come and gone. The District Court has also adjusted other dates so that the primary elections scheduled for May 1 may be held. The State of Texas, although it disagrees with the judgment of the District Court with respect to Dallas County, urges that the election process should not now be interrupted and a new schedule adopted, even for Dallas County. It is urged that because the District Court’s plan is only an interim plan and is subject to replacement by the legislature in 1983, the injury to appellants, if any, will not be irreparable.

It is true that we have authorized District Courts to order or to permit elections to be held pursuant to apportionment plans that do not in all respects measure up to the legal requirements, even constitutional requirements. See, e. g., Bullock v. Weiser, 404 U. S. 1065 (1972); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 396 U. S. 1055 (1970). Necessity has been the motivating factor in these situations,

Because we are not now as familiar as the District Court with the Texas election laws and the legal and practical factors that may bear on whether the primary elections should. be rescheduled, we vacate the District Court judgment and remand the case to that court for further proceedings. See Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 4 (1964). Having indicated the legal error of the District Court, we leave it to that court in the first instance to determine whether to modify its judgment and reschedule the primary elections for Dallas County or, in spite of its erroneous refusal to adopt the SB1 districts for Dallas County, to allow the election to go forward in accordance with the present schedule.

The judgment of the Court shall issue forthwith.

So ordered.

       His objection, however, went to the entire plan, and on February 23, he refused the State’s request that the objection be severed and addressed to only a portion of SB1 (but see n. 7, infra).

       The existing apportionment plan created only 24, not 27 districts, and the changes in population over the past 10 years had created extreme numerical variations between the districts, which were unconstitutional under the one-man, one-vote rule.

       Judge Parker dissented from the relevant part of the court order — he would have followed SB1 in Dallas County.

       The relevant passage of Judge Johnson’s opinion reads as follows:
      “This Court recognizes that certain minority group members expressed a desire for a ‘safe’ minority district in Dallas County. After consideration of numerous political factors, and substantial legislative battling, the Texas Legislature decided on the configurations in S.B.l .... The legislature was at liberty to engage in such considerations. This Court, in fashioning a nonretrogressive apportionment plan does not have that privilege. It must evaluate the new plan without access to questions regarding the ability of separate minority groups to form coalitions or other political concerns. ... It is not before this Court to determine whether considerations valid in the legislative context justify simply increasing swing-vote influence in one district at the expense of the influence previously enjoyed in a neighboring district. This Court determines, however, that, in the context of a court-ordered apportionment plan, such a trade-off would result in a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” 536 F. Supp., at 957, n. 9.

       Appellants are supported in this appeal by the State of Texas. While Texas agrees with them on the merits of this case and supports a summary reversal of the District Court decision, it asks that this Court delay any remedial action until after the 1982 elections. In other words, Texas chai-lenges the merits of the District Court decision, but contends that it would be too disruptive and expensive to attempt to alter the 1982 elections at this point.

       Appellants propose two other arguments. First, under Texas law an invalid statutory provision is severable. Therefore, the fact that the Attorney General objected to the validity of SBl’s district lines for 2 districts did not invalidate the plans for the other 25 districts. Second, the “stricter standards” applicable to court-ordered plans apply only to the use of multimember districts and population variations beyond a de minimis amount. In particular, this “stricter standard” does not apply to plans that have already been precleared by the Attorney General. In light of our disposition of the case, we need not reach either of these arguments.

       The Attorney General took the same position in declining to grant preclearance to that portion of SB1 that he did not find objectionable:
      “Since the federal district courts will be acting in the stead of the Legislature we believe that the courts should attempt to effectuate the legislative judgment to the extent possible and modify the Legislature’s plans only as necessary to meet the concerns raised in the objection letters. In other words, we believe the court should make such modifications to the plans as would normally be made by the Legislature if it were in session.” App. to Juris. Statement F-3 (letter of Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, to Texas Secretary of State).
      In this Court, the Solicitor General takes a slightly different position. He contends that the question of what weight a district court should give to a legislative plan that is partially objected to by the Attorney General is substantial and, therefore, merits plenary consideration by this Court.


author: Justice Brennan Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    BROWN v. HARTLAGE
    No. 80-1285.
    Argued January 20, 1982
    Decided April 5, 1982

      Brennan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Burger, C. J., concurred in the judgment. Rehnquist, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 62.

      Fred M. Goldberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jonathan D. Goldberg.

      L. Stanley Chauvin, Jr., by invitation of the Court, 454 U. S. 936, argued the cause and filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.
   Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a State from declaring an election void because the victorious candidate had announced to the voters during his campaign that he intended to serve at a salary less than that “fixed by law.”

I

This case involves a challenge to an application of the Kentucky Corrupt Practices Act. The parties were opposing candidates in the 1979 general election for the office of Jefferson County Commissioner, “C” District. Petitioner, Carl Brown, was the challenger; respondent, Earl Hartlage, was the incumbent. On August 15, 1979, in the course of the campaign, Brown held a televised press conference together with Bill Creech, the “B” District candidate on the same party ticket. Brown charged his opponent with complicity in a form of fiscal abuse:

“There are . . . three part-time county commissioners. With state law limiting their authority and responsibility to legislation ... , it is clear that their jobs are simply not worth $20,000 a year each. It is ludicrous that the part-time commissioners nevertheless see fit to pay themselves the same amount as that paid the full-time county judge. The mere fact that state law allows such outrageous levels of remuneration does not in itself justify those payments. ... At a fiscal court meeting in 1976, Hartlage led a surprise move to . . . more than double the salaries of the county commissioners! His actions demonstrated his unmistakable disrespect for the office of the chief executive of this county and his utter disdain for the spirit of laws that govern our county system. . . . [U]sing the gray fringes of the law for his own personal gain, Hartlage led the move to funnel county tax dollars into commissioners’ pockets.” App. 1-2.

On behalf of himself and his running mate, Creech pledged the taxpayers some relief:

“We abhor the commissioners’ outrageous salaries. And to prove the strength of our convictions, one of our first official acts as county commissioners will be to lower our salary to a more realistic level. We will lower our salaries, saving the taxpayers $36,000 during our first term of office, by $3,000 each year.” Id., at 2.

Shortly after the press conference, Brown and Creech learned that their commitment to lower their salaries arguably violated the Kentucky Corrupt Practices Act. On August 19, 1979, they issued a joint statement retracting their earlier pledge:

“We are men enough to admit when we’ve made a mistake.
“We have discovered that there are Kentucky court decisions and Attorney General opinions which indicate that our pledge to reduce our salaries if elected may be illegal.
“. . . [W]e do hereby formally rescind our pledge to reduce the County Commissioners’ salary if elected and instead pledge to seek corrective legislation in the next session of the General Assembly, to correct this silly provision of State Law.” Id., at 4-5.

In the November 6, 1979, election, Brown defeated Hartlage by 10,151 votes. Creech was defeated.

Hartlage then filed this action in the Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging that Brown had violated the Corrupt Practices Act and seeking to have the election declared void and the office of Jefferson County Commissioner, “C” District, vacated by Brown. Section 121.055, upon which Hartlage based his claim, provides:

“Candidates prohibited from making expenditure, loan, promise, agreement, or contract as to action when elected, in consideration for vote. — No candidate for nomination or election to any state, county, city or district office shall expend, pay, promise, loan or become pecuniarily liable in any way for money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person in consideration of the vote or financial or moral support of that person. No such candidate shall promise, agree or make a contract with any person to vote for or support any particular individual, thing or measure, in consideration for the vote or the financial or moral support of that person in any election, primary or nominating convention, and no person shall require that any candidate make such a promise, agreement or contract.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 121.055 (1982).

In Sparks v. Boggs, 339 S.W. 2d 480 (1960), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that candidates’ promises to serve at yearly salaries of $1, and to vote to distribute the salary savings to specified charitable organizations, violated the Corrupt Practices Act where the salaries had been “fixed by law.” In the instant case, the trial court found that Brown’s prospective salary had been fixed by law and that, under the reasoning of Sparks, Brown’s promise violated the Act. Nevertheless, the court concluded that in light of Brown’s retraction, the defeat of his running mate, who had joined in the pledge, and the presumption that the will of the people had been revealed through the election process, Brown had been “fairly elected.” App. 25. It thus declined to order a new election. Id., at 26.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed. 618 S. W. 2d 603. That court agreed with the Circuit Court that the salary of County Commissioners was fixed by law, and that Brown’s statement was proscribed by § 121.055 as construed in Sparks v. Boggs, supra. The Court of Appeals also held, however, that the trial court had erred in failing to order a new election. App. 34-35. It held that retraction of the offending statement was “of no consequence under the law of this state,” id., at 35, and that the trial court was mistaken in believing that it possessed the discretionary authority to balance the gravity of the violation against the disenfranchisement of the electorate that would result from declaring the election void, ibid. With respect to Brown’s First Amendment claims, the court was of the view that “[t]o hold that promises to serve at reduced compensation in violation of the Corrupt Practices Act are immune from regulation in view of the provisions of the United States Constitution is to open the door to arguments that other statements in violation of the Corrupt Practices Act are protected because they involve speech and self-expression.” Id., at 36. The court quoted approvingly the maxims that “[a] state may punish those who abuse the constitutional freedom of speech by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or disturb the public peace,” and that “[i]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language.” Id., at 36-37, quoting 16A Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law §§ 409, 507 (1979). The court then concluded that Brown’s “statement was not constitutionally protected.” App. 37.

In an opinion denying petitioner’s motion for rehearing, the court more pointedly addressed petitioner’s First Amendment arguments. The court found that the State’s interest in the fairness and integrity of its elections was compelling, and that the State could insist that elections be conducted free of corruption and bribery. Id., at 39. The court restated its view that under the laws of the State a promise such as Brown’s was considered an attempt to buy votes or to bribe the voters. Ibid. Finally, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that § 121.055, as construed by Sparks, supra, was “unconstitutionally broad.” Although the court found some appeal in Brown’s argument that “[i]f carried to its logical extreme . . . any promise by a candidate to increase the efficiency and thus lower the cost of government might likewise be considered as an attempt to buy votes,” the court was of the view that Sparks controlled its disposition and suggested to petitioner that he seek reconsideration of that decision in the Supreme Court of Kentucky. App. 39-40. The Supreme Court of Kentucky denied review. Id., at 41. We granted the petition for certiorari. 450 U. S. 1029 (1981).

II

We begin our analysis of § 121.055 by acknowledging that the States have a legitimate interest in preserving the integrity of their electoral processes. Just as a State may take steps to ensure that its governing political institutions and officials properly discharge public responsibilities and maintain public trust and confidence, a State has a legitimate interest in upholding the integrity of the electoral process itself. But when a State seeks to uphold that interest by restricting speech, the limitations on state authority imposed by the First Amendment are manifestly implicated.

At the core of the First Amendment are certain basic conceptions about the manner in which political discussion in a representative democracy should proceed. As we noted in Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218-219 (1966):

“Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes.”

The free exchange of ideas provides special vitality to the process traditionally at the heart of American constitutional democracy — the political campaign. “[I]f it be conceded that the First Amendment was ‘fashioned to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,’ then it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 271-272 (1971) (citation omitted). The political candidate does not lose the protection of the First Amendment when he declares himself for public office. Quite to the contrary:

“The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First Amendment right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election and the election of other candidates. Indeed, it is of particular importance that candidates have the unfettered opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on election day. Mr. Justice Brandéis’ observation that in our country ‘public discussion is a political duty,’ Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (concurring opinion), applies with special force to candidates for public office.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 52-53 (1976) (per curiam).

When a State seeks to restrict directly the offer of ideas by a candidate to the voters, the First Amendment surely requires that the restriction be demonstrably supported by not only a legitimate state interest, but a compelling one, and that the restriction operate without unnecessarily circumscribing protected expression.

III

On its face, §121.055 prohibits a candidate from offering material benefits to voters in consideration for their votes, and, conversely, prohibits candidates from accepting payments in consideration for the manner in which they serve their public function. Sparks v. Boggs, 339 S. W. 2d 480 (1960), placed a not entirely obvious gloss on that provision with respect to candidate utterances concerning the salaries of the office for which they were running, by barring the candidate from promising to reduce his salary when that salary was already “fixed by law.” We thus consider the constitutionality of § 121.055 with respect to the proscription evident on the face of the statute, and in light of the more particularized concerns suggested by the Sparks gloss. We discern three bases upon which the application of the statute to Brown’s promise might conceivably be justified: first, as a prohibition on buying votes; second, as facilitating the candidacy of persons lacking independent wealth; and third, as an application of the State’s interests and prerogatives with respect to factual misstatements. We consider these possible justifications in turn.

A

The first sentence of § 121.055 prohibits a political candidate from giving, or promising to give, anything of value to a voter in exchange for his vote or support. In many of its possible applications, this provision would appear to present little constitutional difficulty, for a State may surely prohibit a candidate from buying votes. No body politic worthy of being called a democracy entrusts the selection of leaders to a process of auction or barter. And as a State may prohibit the giving of money or other things of value to a voter in exchange for his support, it may also declare unlawful an agreement embodying the intention to make such an exchange. Although agreements to engage in illegal conduct undoubtedly possess some element of association, the State may ban such illegal agreements without trenching on any right of association protected by the First Amendment. The fact that such an agreement necessarily takes the form of words does not confer upon it, or upon the underlying conduct, the constitutional immunities that the First Amendment extends to speech. Finally, while a solicitation to enter into an agreement arguably crosses the sometimes hazy line distinguishing conduct from pure speech, such a solicitation, even though it may have an impact in the political arena, remains in essence an invitation to engage in an illegal exchange for private profit, and may properly be prohibited. See Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 496 (1982); Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U. S. 557, 563-564 (1980); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. 376, 388 (1973).

It is thus plain that some kinds of promises made by a candidate to voters, and some kinds of promises elicited by voters from candidates, may be declared illegal without constitutional difficulty. But it is equally plain that there are constitutional limits on the State’s power to prohibit candidates from making promises in the course of an election campaign. Some promises are universally acknowledged as legitimate, indeed “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy,” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978); and the “maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means ... is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.” Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931). Candidate commitments enhance the accountability of government officials to the people whom they represent, and assist the voters in predicting the effect of their vote. The fact that some voters may find their self-interest reflected in a candidate’s commitment does not place that commitment beyond the reach of the First Amendment. We have never insisted that the franchise be exercised without taint of individual benefit; indeed, our tradition of political pluralism is partly predicated on the expectation that voters will pursue their individual good through the political process, and that the summation of these individual pursuits will further the collective welfare. So long as the hoped-for personal benefit is to be achieved through the normal processes of government, and not through some private arrangement, it has always been, and remains, a reputable basis upon which to cast one’s ballot.

It remains to determine the standards by which we might distinguish between those “private arrangements” that are inconsistent with democratic government, and those candidate assurances that promote the representative foundation of our political system. We hesitate before attempting to formulate some test of constitutional legitimacy: the precise nature of the promise, the conditions upon which it is given, the circumstances under which it is made, the size of the audience, the nature and size of the group to be benefited, all might, in some instance and to varying extents, bear upon the constitutional assessment. But acknowledging the difficulty of rendering a concise formulation, or recognizing the possibility of borderline cases, does not disable us from identifying cases far from any troublesome border.

It is clear that the statements of petitioner Brown in the course of the August 15 press conference were very different in character from the corrupting agreements and solicitations historically recognized as unprotected by the First Amendment. Notably, Brown’s commitment to serve at a reduced salary was made' openly, subject to the comment and criticism of his political opponent and to the scrutiny of the voters. We think the fact that the statement was made in full view of the electorate offers a strong indication that the statement contained nothing fundamentally at odds with our shared political ethic.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals analogized Brown’s promise to a bribe. But however persuasive that analogy might be as a matter of state law, there is no constitutional basis upon which Brown’s pledge to reduce his salary might be equated with a candidate’s promise to pay voters for their support from his own pocketbook. Although upon election Brown would undoubtedly have had a valid claim to the salary that had been “fixed by law,” Brown did not offer the voters a payment from his personal funds. His was a declaration of intention to exercise the fiscal powers of government office within what he believed (albeit erroneously) to be the recognized framework of office. At least to outward appearances, the commitment was fully in accord with our basic understanding of legitimate activity by a government body. Before any implicit monetary benefit to the individual taxpayer might have been realized, public officials — among them, of course, Brown himself — would have had to approve that benefit in accordance with the good faith exercise of their public duties. Although Brown may have been incorrect in suggesting that his salary could have been lawfully reduced, this cannot, in itself, transform his promise into an invitation to engage in a private and politically corrupting arrangement.

In addition, despite the Kentucky courts’ characterization of the promise to serve at a reduced salary as an offer “to reduce pro tanto the amount of taxes each individual taxpayer must pay, and thus ... an offer to the voter of pecuniary gain,” App. 33, it is impossible to discern in Brown’s generalized commitment any invitation to enter into an agreement that might place the statement outside the realm of unequivocal protection that the Constitution affords to political speech. Not only was the source of the promised benefit the public fisc, but that benefit was to extend beyond those voters who cast their ballots for Brown, to all taxpayers and citizens. Even if Brown’s commitment could in some sense have been deemed an “offer,” it scarcely contemplated a particularized acceptance or a quid pro quo arrangement. It was to be honored, “if elected”; it was conditioned not on any particular vote or votes, but entirely on the majority’s vote.

In sum, Brown did not offer some private payment or donation in exchange for voter support; Brown’s statement can only be construed as an expression of his intention to exercise public power in a manner that he believed might be acceptable to some class of citizens. If Brown’s expressed intention had an individualized appeal to some taxpayers who felt themselves the likely beneficiaries of his form of fiscal restraint, that fact is of little constitutional significance. The benefits of most public policy changes accrue not only to the undifferentiated “public,” but more directly to particular individuals or groups. Like a promise to lower taxes, to increase efficiency in government, or indeed to increase taxes in order to provide some group with a desired public benefit or public service, Brown’s promise to reduce his salary cannot be deemed beyond the reach of the First Amendment, or considered as inviting the kind of corrupt arrangement the appearance of which a State may have a compelling interest in avoiding. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 27.

A State may insist that candidates seeking the approval of the electorate work within the framework of our democratic institutions, and base their appeal on assertions of fitness for office and statements respecting the means by which they intend to further the public welfare. But a candidate’s promise to confer some ultimate benefit on the voter, qua taxpayer, citizen, or member of the general public, does not lie beyond the pale of First Amendment protection.

B

Sparks v. Boggs, 339 S. W. 2d 480 (1960), relied in part on the interest a State may have in ensuring that the willingness of some persons to serve in public office without remuneration does not make gratuitous service the sine qua non of plausible candidacy. The State might legitimately fear that such emphasis on free public service might result in persons of independent wealth but less ability being chosen over those who, though better qualified, could not afford to serve at a reduced salary. But if § 121.055 was designed to further this interest, it chooses a means unacceptable under the First Amendment. In barring certain public statements with respect to this issue, the State ban runs directly contrary to the fundamental premises underlying the First Amendment as the guardian of our democracy. That Amendment embodies our trust in the free exchange of ideas as the means by which the people are to choose between good ideas and bad, and between candidates for political office. The State’s fear that voters might make an ill-advised choice does not provide the State with a compelling justification for limiting speech. It is simply not the function of government to “select which issues are worth discussing or debating,” Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 96 (1972), in the course of a political campaign.

C

Amicus points out that §121.055, as applied through Sparks v. Boggs, supra, bars promises to serve at a reduced salary only when the salary of the official has been “fixed by law,” and where the promise cannot, therefore, be delivered. Of course, demonstrable falsehoods are not protected by the First Amendment in the same manner as truthful statements. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 340 (1974). But “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and ... it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need ... to survive,’ ” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 271-272 (1964), quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433 (1963). Section 121.055, as applied in this case, has not afforded the requisite “breathing space.”

The Commonwealth of Kentucky has provided that a candidate for public office forfeits his electoral victory if he errs in announcing that he will, if elected, serve at a reduced salary. As the Kentucky courts have made clear in this case, a candidate’s liability under § 121.055 for such an error is absolute: His election victory must be voided even if the offending statement was made in good faith and was quickly repudiated. The chilling effect of such absolute accountability for factual misstatements in the course of political debate is incompatible with the atmosphere of free discussion contemplated by the First Amendment in the context of political campaigns. See Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265 (1971); Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron, 401 U. S. 295 (1971). Although the state interest in protecting the political process from distortions caused by untrue and inaccurate speech is somewhat different from the state interest in protecting individuals from defamatory falsehoods, the principles underlying the First Amendment remain paramount. Whenever compatible with the underlying interests at stake, under the regime of that Amendment “we depend for . . . correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 339-340. In a political campaign, a candidate’s factual blunder is unlikely to escape the notice of, and correction by, the erring candidate’s political opponent. The preferred First Amendment remedy of “more speech, not enforced silence,” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring), thus has special force. Cf. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 344. There has been no showing in this case that petitioner made the disputed statement other than in good faith and without knowledge of its falsity, or that he made the statement with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not. Moreover, petitioner retracted the statement promptly after discovering that it might have been false. Under these circumstances, nullifying petitioner’s election victory was inconsistent with the atmosphere of robust political debate protected by the First Amendment.

IV

Because we conclude that § 121.055 has been applied in this case to limit speech in violation of the First Amendment, we reverse the judgment of the Kentucky Court of Appeals and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.

Justice Rehnquist,

concurring in the result.

I agree that the provision of the Kentucky Corrupt Practices Act discussed by the Court in its opinion impermissibly limits freedom of speech on the part of political candidates in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Because on different facts I think I would give more weight to the State’s interest in preventing corruption in elections, I am unable to join the Court’s analogy between such laws and state defamation laws. I think Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214 (1966), affords ample basis for reaching the result at which the Court arrives, and I see no need to rely on other precedents which do not involve state efforts to regulate the electoral process.

       Although respondent filed a brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari, he did not file a brief on the merits. At the invitation of the Court, L. Stanley Chauvin, Jr., Esq., submitted a brief and argued in support of the judgment below as amicus curiae.

       Brown echoed his running mate’s call for fiscal restraint:
      “. . . These two proposals — cutting our own salaries and reorganizing the commissioner’s office staff, will save the taxpayers over $172,000 during our term of office.
      “We make these statements fully aware that the office we intend to occupy should set the tone for the type of public officials we intend to be.
      “Under our guidance, extravagance of public expense will be a thing of the past, and responsibility and integrity will be our watchwords, Progress through Cooperation our theme.” App 3.

       Hartlage received a total of 83,675 votes; Brown received 93,826 votes. Certificate of Election, id., at 7.

       In 1980, the provision was amended to replace the word “demand” in the last clause with the word “require.” 1980 Ky. Acts, ch. 292, § 3.
      Under Kentucky law, an equity action to contest an election may be maintained by any candidate who received more than 25% of the number of votes that were cast for the successful candidate. Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 120.155, 120.165 (1982). The Kentucky Corrupt Practices Act identifies a violation of § 121.055 as a proper basis for such a contest, and provides that “[i]f no such violation [of the Corrupt Practices Act] by the contestant, or by others in his behalf with his knowledge, appears, and it appears that such provisions have been violated by the contestee or by others in his behalf with his knowledge, the nomination or election of the contestee shall be declared void.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 120.015 (1982).

       The Court of Appeals noted that under Kentucky law, “salaries for county officers elected by popular vote shall be set by the fiscal court ‘not later than the first Monday in May in the year in which the officers are elected, and the compensation of the officer shall not be changed during the term. . . .’ Brown promised to do an act that he could not legally do.” App. 32-33 (quoting Ky. Rev. Stat. § 64.530(4) (1980)). See Ky. Const. §§ 161, 246.

       The court quoted the following extract from Sparks, describing the rationale underlying the statute’s application to statements such as Brown’s:
      “ ‘ “An agreement by a candidate for office that if chosen he will discharge the duties of the office without compensation or for a lesser compensation than that provided by law, or will pay part of his salary into the public treasury, is illegal, whether made in good faith or not. The underlying principle ... is that when a candidate offers to discharge the duties of an elective office for less than the salary fixed by law, a salary which must be paid by taxation, he offers to reduce pro tanto the amount of taxes each individual taxpayer must pay, and thus makes an offer to the voter of pecuniary gain” [quoting 43 Am. Jur., Public Officers § 374, p. 159 (1942)].
      ‘“It appears to us there can be no escape from the conclusion that a promise to take a reduction in the salary set by law for an elective public office, or an agreement to discharge the duties of the office gratis, advanced by one to induce votes for his candidacy, is so vicious in its tendency as to constitute a violation of the Corrupt Practices Act.’” App. 33.

       See The Federalist No. 10. The Madisonian democratic tradition extolled a system of political pluralism in which “the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.” The Federalist No. 51, p. 324 (H. Lodge ed. 1888). But it was also contemplated within that tradition that the individual may perceive his interest as according with the public good: “In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.” Id., at 327.

       As explained by the Kentucky Court of Appeals:
      “To hold otherwise would permit the various elective public offices to become filled by those who would purchase their election thereto by making the most extravagant bid. The auction method of choosing a public officer would supplant the personal fitness test. Eventually most of the public offices would be occupied by the opulent, who could afford to serve without pay, or by the ambitious, who would serve only for the pittance of honor attached to the office, or by the designing grafter, who would surely obtain his remuneration by methods which would not bear scrutiny. Under such a system good government would certainly vanish from every subdivision of the state.” 339 S. W. 2d, at 484.
      Other courts have expressed similar views. For example, Sparks quoted with approval the following passage from the opinion of Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court of Kansas, later Justice Brewer of this Court, in State ex rel. Bill v. Elting, 29 Kan. 397, 402 (1883):
      “ ‘The theory of popular government is that the most worthy should hold the offices. Personal fitness — and in that is included moral character, intellectual ability, social standing, habits of life, and political convictions— is the single test which the law will recognize. That which throws other considerations into the scale, and to that extent tends to weaken the power to personal fitness, should not be tolerated. It tends to turn away the thought of the voter from the one question which should be paramount in his mind when he deposits his ballot. It is in spirit at least, bribery, more insidious, and therefore more dangerous, than the grosser form of directly offering money to the voter.’” 339 S. W. 2d., at 483-484.
      See also State ex rel. Clements v. Humphreys, 74 Tex. 466, 12 S. W. 99 (1889).

       A State could address this concern by prohibiting the reduction of a public official’s salary during his term of office, as Kentucky has done here. See n. 5, supra. Such a prohibition does not offend the First Amendment. We note, only in passing, that along with the 10 proposed Articles that upon ratification became the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, were 2 others, proposed Articles I and II, which were not ratified. Article II provided: “No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”