Per Curiam.
This appeal presents questions as to the appropriate standards of proof and appropriate remedy in suits that allege a violation of voting rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not reach these questions, however, as it appears that the judgment under review may rest alternatively upon a statutory ground of decision.
I
Appellees, black voters of Escambia County, Fla., filed suit in the District Court, alleging that the at-large system for electing the five members of the Board of County Commissioners violated appellees’ rights under the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 Stat. 637, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1971(a)(1), and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973. Appellees contended that the at-large system operated to “dilute” their voting strength. See, e. g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 616-617 (1982).
The District Court entered judgment for appellees. That court found that the at-large system used by the county discriminated against black voters and had been retained at least in part for discriminatory purposes. The court concluded that the system violated appellees’ rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act. The District Court ordered that the five commissioners be elected from single-member districts.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment, concluding that the at-large election system violated the Fourteenth Amendment and that the District Court’s remedy was appropriate. 688 F. 2d 960 (1982). As the finding of a Fourteenth Amendment violation was adequate to support the District Court’s judgment, the Court of Appeals did not review the District Court’s conclusion that the at-large system also violated the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Id., at 961, n. 2.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 460 U. S. 1080 (1983).
II
This appeal presents the question whether the evidence of discriminatory intent in the record before the District Court was adequate to support the finding that the at-large system violated the Fourteenth Amendment. We decline to decide this question. As the Court of Appeals noted, the District Court’s judgment rested alternatively upon the Voting Rights Act. See 688 F. 2d, at 961, n. 2; App. to Juris. Statement 101a. Moreover, the 1982 amendments to that Act, Pub. L. 97-205, §3, 96 Stat. 134, 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b), were not before the Court of Appeals. Affirmance on the statutory ground would moot the constitutional issues presented by the case. It is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case. See Ashwander v. TV A, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The parties have not briefed the statutory question, and, in any event, that question should be decided in the first instance by the Court of Appeals. We conclude, therefore, that the proper course is to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court for consideration of the question whether the Voting Rights Act provides grounds for affirmance of the District Court’s judgment.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun, while joining the Court’s per curiam opinion, would disallow costs in this case.
Defendants named in the suit were Escambia County, the Board of County Commissioners and its individual members, and the County Supervisor of Elections. Only former and present individual members of the Board are now before the Court as appellants. See n. 4, infra.
The Court of Appeals initially had reversed the District Court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals had found, under this Court’s decision in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980), that claims of “vote dilution” were not cognizable under the Fifteenth Amendment or the Voting Rights Act and that the evidence of discriminatory intent was insufficient to demonstrate a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 638 F. 2d 1239 (1981). After this Court decided Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613 (1982), the Court of Appeals granted appellees’ petition for rehearing and reversed its judgment on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. 688 F. 2d 960 (1982). The Court of Appeals concluded, in light of Rogers, that the District Court’s findings as to the discriminatory effects and purposes of the at-large system were not “clearly erroneous.” 688 F. 2d, at 969.
The Court of Appeals vacated its first opinion, see n. 2, supra, that had considered questions under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. 688 F. 2d, at 961. Reconsideration of these grounds for relief on the petition for rehearing would have further delayed decision of the case, because appellants had not had an opportunity to brief the questions raised by Congress’ recent amendment of the Voting Rights Act, see infra, at 51.
Appellees move to dismiss on the grounds that no proper appellants are before the Court. The Board of County Commissioners itself has voted to dismiss the appeal. Aside from the two present Commissioners who dissented from this vote, several former Commissioners, who lost their seats in the subsequent court-ordered election, remain before the Court. Contrary to appellees’ contention, the former Commissioners were not automatically dismissed as appellants when they left office, and the jurisdictional statement did not limit them to participation in the appeal in their “official capacity.” Juris. Statement 1. Appellees have not suggested that the appeal is moot as to the issues of liability or that appellants have no live interest in the controversy.
Appellees do contend that the issue of appropriate remedy is moot, a contention that we need not reach in light of our disposition of the case. See n. 6, infra. Nor need we reach appellees’ contention that the case is not a proper appeal, a contention that may involve difficult questions of Florida law, as we would in any event treat the jurisdictional statement as a petition for certiorari, grant that petition, and dispose of the case as we do today. See 28 U. S. C. § 2103; El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U. S. 497, 501-503 (1965).
As amended, § 1973 provides in part:
“(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color ....
“(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. ...”
Because questions of liability remain to be considered, we need not reach the issue whether the District Court’s remedial order was proper under Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U. S. 535 (1978), and McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130 (1981).
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations