concurring in the judgment.
Although I believe that the wiser course would be simply to affirm the judgment below, I go along reluctantly with the Court’s resolution of this case rather than bring it here for argument. I am willing to do this only because I consider it most unlikely that the Attorney General could find any reasoned basis for denying approval of the change at issue in this case. Thus, it is improbable that the court below ever will have to pass on the request to cut short the terms of the two Commissioners elected in 1976 which the Court allows appellants to “renew” if the change is not approved. Ante, at 193. I write to emphasize my view that the three-judge court cannot be faulted for its common-sense handling of this case. I do not understand the Court to disagree with this view.
I
The facts and procedural posture of this case deserve a fuller treatment than the Court gives them. Under a state law enacted in 1964, the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenues for Peach County, Ga., is composed of three members, assigned to numbered posts. 1964 Ga. Laws No. 800, § 1, p. 2627. Posts 1 and 2 are filled by residents of designated districts, and Post 3 is elected at large. Until 1968, all three posts were elected simultaneously for four-year terms. In 1968, the Georgia Legislature enacted a statute providing for a partial staggering of the Commissioners’ terms. 1968 Ga. Laws No. 800, § 2A, p. 2473. Under the statute, Post 3, the at-large seat, was to be elected to a two-year term in 1968, and thereafter to four-year terms. No change was made in *197the terms of the other two Commissioners. The result is that the election for Post 3 no longer is held at the same time as the election for the other two posts.1
Elections were held under the amendment in 1968, 1970, 1972, and 1974 without challenge. It was only on August 6, 1976 — -four days before the 1976 primary election — that appellants filed this lawsuit seeking to enjoin that election and the general election on the ground that the amendment had not received the imprimatur of the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia as required by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A single judge of the District Court, acting promptly, ruled on appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction before the primary election was held. That judge, “seriously question[ing]” whether the change even was covered by § 5, and apparently in view of the tardiness of the suit — which to this day has not been explained — sensibly refused to enjoin the election. App. to Jurisdictional Statement 7a.
After the 1976 primary and general elections for Posts 1 and 2 had been held, a three-judge District Court was convened. That court concluded that the 1968 amendment was subject to the preclearance requirements of § 5 after all, and it enjoined enforcement of the 1968 amendment until those requirements had been met. “Given the rather technical changes made in the county’s election law by the 1968 amendment and, more important, the apparent lack of any discriminatory purpose or effect surrounding the use of the law in the 1976 elections,” however, the court denied appellants’ request to set aside those elections. Id., at 2a-3a, citing Allen v. State *198Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 571-572 (1969) ,2 The three-judge court thereupon “dissolve [d] itself and remand [ed] the case to the originating judge for such other and further proceedings consistent with this opinion as may be required.” App. to Jurisdictional Statement 4a.
Appellants then filed a motion for reconsideration and modification of the three-judge court’s order. In this motion appellants — for the first time — asked the three-judge court to order that all three posts stand for election in 1978 if the change was not approved by then, thus cutting short the terms of the two Commissioners elected in 1976. See Jurisdictional Statement 7 n. 1, 15-16; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 4. The three-judge court refused to consider this belated request, stating: “The problem of relief is a question for a single-judge court.” App. to Jurisdictional Statement 5a. Appellants, however, did not accept this clear invitation to press their request before a single-judge court.
Instead, they brought the instant appeal, urging the Court either to set aside the 1976 elections, or to cut short the terms of the two Commissioners elected in 1976 by declaring all three posts open in 1978. The United States as amicus curiae does not support appellants’ request that the 1976 election be set aside. Neither does it support appellants’ request that the Court declare all three posts open in 1978. Instead, it seeks relief that appellants never have requested, either in the court below or in this Court. It asks the Court to enter an order directing the District Court to give appellees 30 days within which to seek § 5 preclearance. If preclearance is not sought or if the change is not approved, the United States then argues that the District Court should be directed to allow appellants “to renew their request for election of all three members at *199the same time.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8. The United States, like the Court today, see n. 7, infra, carefully takes no position on whether the District Court should grant such further relief if this request is “renewed.”
In my view, the Court would be fully justified in holding that the United States, which is not a party to this suit and did not participate in the court below, is barred from injecting a new issue into the case by requesting the Court to grant relief that appellants themselves never have sought. It would be equally justified in holding that appellants are barred from asking the Court to declare all three posts open in 1978 after the three-judge court declined to rule on this belated request and after appellants ignored that court’s express invitation to press their request before a single-judge court. As a general rule, this Court does not and should not allow parties or amici to raise issues here that were not raised in or ruled upon by the lower courts. Neither should this Court encourage parties to bypass avenues of relief that are open to them in the lower courts. The facts that the case is a Voting Rights Act case, and that the amicus is the United States, provide no justification for departing from these salutary principles.
II
Since the Court has chosen, without explanation, to depart from these principles, I briefly address the question of relief that is presented. Appellees do not challenge the three-judge court’s holding that § 5, as it has been expanded by judicial decision since enactment of the 1968 amendment at issue here, requires preclearance of that amendment. Nor do they challenge that court’s entry of an injunction against enforcing the amendment in future elections until the change is approved. All they ask is that if the change is not approved, such a ruling should not be applied retroactively to abrogate the result of elections already held. In my view, there is much force to their plea.
This case is a classic example of how § 5, enacted to further *200the exercise of an important constitutional right, has been judicially expanded to cover the most inconsequential change in any aspect of election procedure.3 Given this expansion, when courts are called upon to decide whether to grant retroactive relief, they should distinguish the minor or technical change from the substantive change that is likely to result in discrimination. In refusing to set aside the 1976 election, the three-judge court, much to its credit, did just this. Significantly, the Court today does not disturb that judgment, despite appellants’ prayer that it do so.4
It must be remembered that the Voting Rights Act imposes restrictions unique in the history of our country on a limited number of selected States.5 The need to bring a measure of *201common, sense to its application is underscored further by the fact that state and local officials now are supplicants for the Attorney General’s dispensation of approval under § 5 “at the rate of over 1,000 per year, and this rate is by no means indicative of the number of submissions involved if all covered States and political units fully complied with the preclearance requirement, as interpreted by the Attorney General.” United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 147 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). When a change is submitted, the Attorney General may block its implementation simply by stating, within 60 days, that he is unable to conclude that it does not have discriminatory purpose or effect. Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526, 537 (1973). As a result, “the State may be left more or less at sea,” id., at 544 (White, J., dissenting), unable to put into effect such routine and trivial changes as the movement of a polling place or a precinct boundary line.6
Thus, although I agree with the Court that the three-judge court did not err in refusing to set aside the 1976 elections, I remain dubious as to whether it would be any more proper for that court to order all three posts to stand for election in 1978 if the change is not approved. As the Court’s order is framed, however, this question still is open in the District Court if the change is not approved.7 Perhaps that court will be able to *202perceive some distinction that is not apparent to me between setting aside the 1976 elections — the denial of which relief this Court upholds — and achieving essentially the same result by cutting short the terms of the two Commissioners elected in 1976 by ordering all three posts to stand for election in 1978. Because I consider it unlikely that the three-judge court ever will have to face this question, I acquiesce in the disposition of the Court remanding “with instructions to issue an order allowing appellees 30 days within which to apply for approval of the 1968 voting change under § 5, and for further proceedings consistent with [the Court’s] opinion.” Ante, at 193.
It should be noted that the amendment was enacted before this Court, by judicial interpretation, extended the coverage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in, e. g., Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 (1969), and Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971). Thus, when the amendment was enacted, there was no reason to suspect that § 5 preclear-anee was required.
In giving only prospective effect to its decision in Allen, the Court took into account the fact that “the discriminatory purpose or effect of [the challenged] statutes, if any, has not been determined by any court.” 393 U. S., at 572.
In Perkins v. Matthews, supra, the Court held that “§ 5 requires prior submission of any changes in the location of polling places.” 400 U. S., at 388. There are thousands of precincts and polling places in the jurisdictions covered by the Act, and changes in precinct boundary lines and polling places are necessary at frequent intervals to accommodate inevitable population shifts. But under the Court’s interpretation of the Act, a locality that moves a single precinct line or polling place half a block is required first to obtain permission from Washington.
The Court thus rejects Mr. Justice BreNNAn’s suggestion, ante, at 193, that the District Court “erred in refusing to order [retroactive] relief on the basis of its conclusion that the change was ‘rather technical’ with no ‘apparent discriminatory purpose or effect.’ ” See also Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S., at 572, quoted in n. 2, supra; Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S., at 396.
As Mr. Justice SteveNs recently has written: “[The] so-called ‘pre-clearance’ requirement is one of the most extraordinary remedial provisions in an Act noted for its broad remedies. Even the Department of Justice has described it as a 'substantial departure . . . from ordinary concepts of our federal system’; its encroachment on state sovereignty is significant and undeniable.” United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 141 (1978) (dissenting opinion) (footnote omitted). Mr. Justice Harlan made much the same point by describing § 5 as “a revolutionary innovation in American government” which applies only to “a handful of States.” Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 585, 586 (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
One would like to assume that the Attorney General exercises this unprecedented power to veto state and local legislation personally and with the most thoughtful deliberation. But, as previously noted, applications for his dispensation flow to Washington at a rate of over 1,000 per year — almost 4 per business day. Even if the Attorney General had no duties other than those imposed upon him by § 5, one might doubt whether it would be possible for him to pass judgment, with care and sensitivity, upon each change in election laws or procedure submitted for his approval.
The Court “adopt[s] the suggestion of the United States that the District Court should enter an order allowing appellees 30 days within which to apply for approval of the 1968 voting change under § 5. . . . If *202approval is denied, appellants are free to renew to the District Court their request for simultaneous election of all members of the Board at the 1978 general election.” Ante, at 192-193.
It then remands the case “to the District Court with instructions to issue an order allowing appellees 30 days within which to apply for approval of the 1968 voting change under § 5, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Ante, at 193. But the Court does not direct the District Court to grant any “renewed” request that appellants may make. All that it orders is that the District Court allow appellees 30 days within which to seek preclearance and allow appellants to "renew” their request for simultaneous elections in 1978 if the change is not approved.