In the case of Darryl Sinkfield, et al. v. Peggy C. Kelley, et al., 2000, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that allowed for at-large voting in certain judicial elections violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting African-American voting strength. The plaintiffs argued that this system prevented African-American voters from electing candidates of their choice and sought to replace it with single-member districts which they believed would be more representative and fairer towards minority voters. However, the court ruled against them stating that there was no violation as long as minority groups had an equal opportunity to participate in political processes and elect representatives of their choice under current laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Darryl Sinkfield, et al. v. Peggy C. Kelley, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold Alabama's judicial election system was flawed and failed to address concerns about racial bias inherent in the system. The dissenters believed that there was sufficient evidence showing a pattern of racially polarized voting which could potentially undermine minority voters' ability to elect their preferred candidates under Alabama’s at-large electoral scheme for appellate judgeships. They also criticized the majority for not applying strict scrutiny - a higher level of examination used by courts when constitutional rights are being infringed upon - despite clear indications of potential racial discrimination within this electoral process.