The case of Lawrence C. Presley v. Etowah County Commission et al., 1991, revolved around the Voting Rights Act and its application to a local government's decision-making process regarding electoral districts. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether changes in the powers and duties of elected officials required preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which mandates federal approval for any change in voting procedure or practice that could potentially affect minority voters' rights. In this particular instance, after black candidates were elected as county commissioners in Alabama's Etowah County for the first time, their roles were significantly diminished by transferring most administrative duties to an appointed county manager who was not subject to direct public accountability through elections. The court ruled unanimously that such alterations did indeed require preclearance because they constituted a change with respect to voting.

In the dissenting opinion for Lawrence C. Presley v. Etowah County Commission et al., Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Presley was incorrect because it misinterpreted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The dissenters believed that changes in voting procedures should only be subject to preclearance under Section 5 if they have a discriminatory purpose or effect on minority voters' ability to elect their preferred candidates. They disagreed with the majority's broader interpretation which included any change affecting voting even without proof of discrimination intent or impact on election results. This disagreement stemmed from different interpretations of legislative history and congressional intent behind this law section.