383 U.S. 301 (1966)
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to address the long-standing problem of racial discrimination in voting that had persisted in parts of the country for nearly a century.1 Prior civil rights acts from 1957, 1960, and 1964 had proven largely ineffective because case-by-case litigation was slow, expensive, and inadequate to overcome widespread and persistent discrimination.2
South Carolina filed an original bill of complaint in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that selected provisions of the Act were invalid and an injunction against enforcement by the Attorney General.3 The case proceeded on original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, after the Court dispensed with a special master and expedited the hearing due to South Carolina's desire for a ruling before its June 1966 primary elections.4
The Act's coverage formula applied to any state or political subdivision that maintained a test or device on November 1, 1964, and where less than 50 percent of voting-age residents were registered or voted in the 1964 presidential election.5 South Carolina was brought within the formula on August 7, 1965, along with Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, twenty-six counties in North Carolina, and one county in Arizona.
The challenged provisions included the suspension of literacy tests and similar devices under section 4(a), the preclearance requirement for new voting rules under section 5, and the authorization for the Attorney General to appoint federal examiners under section 6(b).6 South Carolina had altered its voting laws in 1965 to extend polling hours from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. but had not submitted the change for federal review.7 The Court invited all states to participate as amici curiae, several of which submitted briefs or argued orally.8
Whether the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 challenged by South Carolina exceed Congress's power under the Fifteenth Amendment?9
Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.10
Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting.11
The McCulloch standard provides that all means which are appropriate, plainly adapted to the legitimate end, and not prohibited by the Constitution are constitutional.12
No. The Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color.13
Congress has broad power to enforce this guarantee by appropriate legislation.14
That power is the same as its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.15
The Voting Rights Act was enacted after Congress found that case-by-case litigation under prior statutes had proved inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination.16
The challenged provisions, including the coverage formula, suspension of tests, preclearance, and federal examiners, are appropriate means.17
They shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of discrimination to its victims.18
The challenged provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are a valid exercise of congressional power under the Fifteenth Amendment.19
Whether the coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is rational and not arbitrary?20
The coverage formula is a rational means of identifying jurisdictions where voting discrimination has been most acute.21
It applies to any state or political subdivision that maintained a test or device on November 1, 1964.22
It also applies where the jurisdiction had less than 50 percent of its voting-age residents registered or voting in the 1964 presidential election.
Yes. The formula is based on objective criteria that correlate closely with the use of discriminatory tests and devices.23
South Carolina was brought within the coverage formula on August 7, 1965.24
Coverage extended at the same time to Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, twenty-six counties in North Carolina, and one county in Arizona.25
The 50 percent registration or voting figure was not chosen arbitrarily.26
It reflected experience that in areas with substantial nonwhite populations, figures below 50 percent were strong evidence of discrimination.27
The formula is not a punishment for past sins but a means of addressing current problems.28
Congress was entitled to infer a significant danger of the evil in the covered areas.29
The coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is rational and not arbitrary.30
Whether the suspension of literacy tests and similar devices in covered areas is an appropriate means to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment?31
The suspension of literacy tests and similar devices in covered areas is an appropriate remedy.32
Congress must have evidence that these tests have been administered in a discriminatory manner.33
The suspension must be limited in time.34
It must be subject to termination if the covered jurisdiction demonstrates it has not used such devices for discriminatory purposes.35
Yes. Congress had before it ample evidence that literacy tests and similar devices had been used to discriminate against Negro voters in the covered jurisdictions, including South Carolina.36
The Act suspends these tests for five years from the last occurrence of substantial voting discrimination.37
The suspension is limited in time.
It is subject to termination if the jurisdiction obtains a declaratory judgment that it has not used such devices for discriminatory purposes during the preceding five years.
This was a legitimate response because continuance of the tests would freeze the effect of past discrimination in favor of unqualified white registrants.38
The suspension of literacy tests and similar devices in covered areas is an appropriate means to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment.39
Whether the preclearance requirement for new voting rules in covered jurisdictions is a permissible method of preventing discriminatory practices?40
Yes. Without the preclearance requirement, covered jurisdictions could enact new rules that would evade the Act's prohibitions.43
The requirement shifts the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of discrimination to its victims.44
South Carolina altered its voting laws in 1965 to extend polling hours from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.45
The State had not submitted the change for federal review.46
The requirement is a reasonable method of ensuring that new rules will not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.47
The preclearance requirement for new voting rules in covered jurisdictions is a permissible method of preventing discriminatory practices.48
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black concurred in the judgment upholding most provisions but dissented from the approval of section 5.49
He argued that the preclearance requirement exceeds the power granted to Congress by the Fifteenth Amendment.50
It strikes at the heart of the federal system by giving federal authorities a veto power over state legislation in the field of voting.51
The requirement is inconsistent with the basic principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment.52
It places the burden on the States to prove that their laws are not discriminatory rather than requiring the federal government to prove that they are.53
He would hold section 5 unconstitutional.54
The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to require States to submit their laws for prior approval.55
Whether the authorization for the Attorney General to appoint federal examiners violates constitutional principles?56
No. The Act authorizes the Attorney General to appoint federal examiners when he certifies that he has received meritorious written complaints from at least twenty residents.60
It also applies when the appointment is otherwise necessary to effectuate the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment.61
Examiners have been assigned to two South Carolina counties.62
The provisions include standards for the Attorney General to consider the registration ratio of nonwhites to whites and evidence of good-faith efforts.63
The challenge procedure and termination provisions provide adequate safeguards.64
This was an appropriate response to persistent procedural tactics used to deny Negroes the franchise.65
The authorization for the Attorney General to appoint federal examiners does not violate constitutional principles.66
Whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violates the principle of equality among the States?67
No. The Fifteenth Amendment is not limited by state boundaries.7071
Congress may enact legislation that applies only in the jurisdictions covered by the formula where the problem of voting discrimination is concentrated.
The coverage formula targets jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory tests and low registration or voting rates.72
South Carolina and other covered states share characteristics of actual voting discrimination.73
The doctrine of equality of States applies only to the terms upon which States are admitted to the Union.74
It does not apply to remedies for local evils that have subsequently appeared.75
The Constitution does not require that all States be treated identically when there are relevant differences among them.76
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not violate the principle of equality among the States.
Whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutionally invades the reserved powers of the States?77
No. The power to regulate elections is not a reserved power that is immune from federal regulation.8182
The Fifteenth Amendment expressly grants Congress the power to enforce its provisions.83
When Congress acts pursuant to its enforcement powers, it may displace state laws that conflict with the federal legislation.84
The Act is a comprehensive and carefully crafted response to a serious national problem.85
It reflects the considered judgment of Congress that more stringent remedies were necessary to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment.86
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not unconstitutionally invade the reserved powers of the States.