Appellant
U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and New York City Board of Elections
Appellee
Morgan and other registered voters
Appellant's Claim
That the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a valid congressional act for enforcingthe Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Alfred Avins
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Tom C.Clark, William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 June 1966
Decision
Ruled in favor of Katzenbach and reversed a lower court's decision finding that Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers in granting voting rightsto Spanish-speaking Puerto Ricans residing in New York.
Significance
The ruling reaffirmed certain powers of Congress by holding it can make lawsoverriding state laws on the same subject, regardless of the constitutionality of the state law. Congress, in specific, could prohibit enforcement of certain state English literacy voting requirements in New York. The ruling, however, also defined limits to Congress' authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress could only adopt measures for the enforcement of Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.
The notion of universal suffrage (right to vote) in modern times in the United States has dominated public opinion. Recognition of the right to vote and equality at the polls are considered basic for a democracy to properly function. However, voters' rights have not been so widely enjoyed in the past. At the birth of the nation in the late 1700s, only white males with property couldvote. The Constitution granted the states the right to establish voting requirements. However, Congress reserved the power to override state laws in Article I of the Constitution.
In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed extending the previous federal guarantees of due process and equal protection of the law to the states. Section 5 of the amendment reads, "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Gradually through time voters' rights were expanded, largely through constitutional amendments. The Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 addressed race voting issues, the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 approved of women's suffrage, the Twenty-third in 1961 extended voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia, and the Twenty-fourthin 1964 eliminated the poll tax requirement.
Into the 1960s, various ethnic minorities continued to encounter barriers inattempting to register to vote. Literacy tests, proving a person could sufficiently communicate in English, frequently served a useful tool by states to restrict voting rights of certain groups of its residents in a discriminatoryway. During the 1964 presidential election, African Americans experienced voter registration problems in many regions of the country. Organized voter registration drives often met with bitter, and sometimes violent, opposition. InMarch of 1965, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. led a protest march fromSelma to Montgomery, Alabama, to draw attention to the voting issue. Soon, following the march, President Lyndon B. Johnson presented a sweeping voting rights bill to Congress which quickly passed.
Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 represented the first time in U.S. history thatCongress became involved in voting regulations. Key provisions of the act included prohibitions against states, or any of their political subdivisions, from denying any U.S. citizen the right to vote based on race or color throughapplication of specific qualifications or standards. Seven southern states could not adopt new voting procedures, including creation of new voting districts, without first providing the state's attorney generals offices an opportunity to review them and raise objections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 alsoauthorized the U.S. attorney general to send federal examiners to the seven states to register African Americans voters in certain situations.
Importantly, the act suspended literacy tests in states where less than halfof the voting-age population was registered or had voted in the 1964 election. This section of the law had immediate impact. By the end of 1965, a quarterof a million new African American voters were registered, one third by the federal examiners. The Southern states quickly challenged the new law in the courts. The states claimed the federal government was exceeding its authorityover voting issues. The Supreme Court upheld the act in South Carolina v.Katzenbach (1966).
In 1965, New York law and state constitution contained an English literacy requirement for residents voting in the state. This requirement affected several hundred thousand New York City residents from the U.S. territory of PuertoRico who only spoke Spanish. In reaction, another section, 4(e), of the 1965act established that persons successfully completing the sixth grade in an accredited school in Puerto Rico where instruction was in Spanish should be allowed to vote despite their inability to read or write English. Several registered New York City voters, including a person named Morgan who actively registered voters in New York City, were upset with the new act. They argued the section illegally prohibited New York's enforcement of the English literacy requirement.
Morgan filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaration that section 4(e) was constitutionally invalid. He also requested an injunction prohibiting Katzenbach, Attorney General of the UnitedStates, and the New York City Board of Elections from implementing section 4(e). A three-judge district court reviewed the case and found in favor of Morgan. The court issued an order blocking 4(e)'s implementation. The court heldby a 2-1 vote that Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when enacting the section. In reaction, Katzenbach appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
A Plain and Consistent Act
By a majority of 7-2, the Court reversed the lower court's ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that section 4(e) of the Voting RightsAct was a proper exercise of congressional power granted by the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the New York English literacy requirement could not be enforced to the extent that it was inconsistent with section 4(e). Brennan wrote that any judicial interpretation of Section 5 that would determine that a state law overrode an act of Congress "would depreciate both congressional resourcefulness and congressional responsibility for implementing the FourteenthAmendment." Brennan observed that the key question was not if the New York English literacy requirement denying the right to vote to certain persons violated the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it was to determine if 4(e) was "appropriate legislation to enforce the Equal Protection Clause."
Brennan noted that section 5 was broad in scope. He applied three tests to decide the case: (1) if the law was enacted to enforce the Equal Protection Clause; (2) if the law was "plainly adapted to that end"; and, (3) if the law was consistent with "the letter and spirit of the constitution."
Regarding the first test, Justice Brennan stated, "There can be no doubt thatsection 4(e) may be regarded as an enactment to enforce the Equal ProtectionClause" because Congress "explicitly declared" such. Brennan observed that "section 4(e) may be viewed as a measure to secure for the Puerto Rican community residing in New York nondiscriminatory treatment by government."
Concerning the second test, Brennan found that section 4(e) "may be readily seen as plainly adapted" to further the objectives of the Equal Protection Clause. It prohibited "New York from denying the right to vote to large segmentsof its Puerto Rican community," thus enhancing the Puerto Rican community'spolitical power. Such power "will be helpful in gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services for the entire Puerto Rican community." Section 4(e) therefore allowed the Puerto Rican minority to enjoy greater equality of civil rights and equal protection under the laws.
Regarding the third test concerning consistency "with the letter and spirit of the constitution," Brennan noted that Morgan alleged the act violated congressional powers under the Fifth Amendment. Morgan contended the standard wasnot applied equally, but only to those educated in schools located within United States jurisdiction. Those educated outside the territorial limits of theUnited States were, in essence, excluded. Congress, according to Morgan, hadthemselves violated the Constitution by not extending the rights recognizedin section 4(e) to all individuals educated in foreign schools.
Joined in dissent by Justice Stewart, Justice Harlan wrote that a key issue was whether New York could demonstrate a legitimate state interest in requiring English literacy to vote. Harlan believed the state's arguments before theCourt succeeded in passing that test. Besides, the federal government traditionally used the English literacy requirement in some other matters, such as naturalization of new citizens. In addition, New York was very experienced with governing non-English speaking residents. Of most concern to Harlan was that Congress inappropriately made an essentially judicial determination on theconstitutionality of the New York law. Congress should have acted only aftera court ruling had been made on the matter. The separation of powers betweenCongress and the judiciary, Harlan warned, were dangerously blurred by this ruling.
Impact
The Morgan ruling found that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 properly extended equal protection guarantees to Puerto Ricans in New York. Precedence created by the ruling was seen as limited to situations where Congress remedied state actions denying equal protection. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment was recognized as a positive grant of legislative power to Congress to determine when legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the FourteenthAmendment. The power is not absolute though. Congressional acts must demonstrate some reasonable possibility of addressing a legitimate equal protection concern. In Morgan, the Court found that Voting Rights Act of 1965 enabled the Puerto Rican minority to attain greater social equality and equal protection of the laws.
The decision combated a restrictive view of congressional powers in the Fourteenth Amendment as advocated by some, and added further strength to the 1965act in fighting racial discrimination. The decision played a role in formulating the 1968 Civil Rights Act. Congress relied on the Morgan decisionin expanding federal powers to prohibit racially motivated violence in hate crimes, and to outlaw private housing discrimination.
Actions of the 1960s led to more revisions later in voters' rights. The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18. The Voting Rights Act was amended and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982. These later revisions added use of bilingual ballots in some areas,prohibited literacy requirements, and allowed illiterate, blind, or disabledvoters to be assisted in the voting booth. The 1975 amendment allowed citizens living abroad to vote in federal elections through absentee ballot. In 1984, accessibility to the voting booth for the elderly was guaranteed. Several states challenged congressional legislation lowering the voting age in all elections to 18, and establishing residency and absentee voting requirements forpresidential elections.
Related Cases
U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and New York City Board of Elections
Appellee
Morgan and other registered voters
Appellant's Claim
That the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a valid congressional act for enforcingthe Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Alfred Avins
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Tom C.Clark, William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 June 1966
Decision
Ruled in favor of Katzenbach and reversed a lower court's decision finding that Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers in granting voting rightsto Spanish-speaking Puerto Ricans residing in New York.
Significance
The ruling reaffirmed certain powers of Congress by holding it can make lawsoverriding state laws on the same subject, regardless of the constitutionality of the state law. Congress, in specific, could prohibit enforcement of certain state English literacy voting requirements in New York. The ruling, however, also defined limits to Congress' authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress could only adopt measures for the enforcement of Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.
The notion of universal suffrage (right to vote) in modern times in the United States has dominated public opinion. Recognition of the right to vote and equality at the polls are considered basic for a democracy to properly function. However, voters' rights have not been so widely enjoyed in the past. At the birth of the nation in the late 1700s, only white males with property couldvote. The Constitution granted the states the right to establish voting requirements. However, Congress reserved the power to override state laws in Article I of the Constitution.
In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed extending the previous federal guarantees of due process and equal protection of the law to the states. Section 5 of the amendment reads, "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Gradually through time voters' rights were expanded, largely through constitutional amendments. The Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 addressed race voting issues, the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 approved of women's suffrage, the Twenty-third in 1961 extended voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia, and the Twenty-fourthin 1964 eliminated the poll tax requirement.
Into the 1960s, various ethnic minorities continued to encounter barriers inattempting to register to vote. Literacy tests, proving a person could sufficiently communicate in English, frequently served a useful tool by states to restrict voting rights of certain groups of its residents in a discriminatoryway. During the 1964 presidential election, African Americans experienced voter registration problems in many regions of the country. Organized voter registration drives often met with bitter, and sometimes violent, opposition. InMarch of 1965, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. led a protest march fromSelma to Montgomery, Alabama, to draw attention to the voting issue. Soon, following the march, President Lyndon B. Johnson presented a sweeping voting rights bill to Congress which quickly passed.
Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 represented the first time in U.S. history thatCongress became involved in voting regulations. Key provisions of the act included prohibitions against states, or any of their political subdivisions, from denying any U.S. citizen the right to vote based on race or color throughapplication of specific qualifications or standards. Seven southern states could not adopt new voting procedures, including creation of new voting districts, without first providing the state's attorney generals offices an opportunity to review them and raise objections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 alsoauthorized the U.S. attorney general to send federal examiners to the seven states to register African Americans voters in certain situations.
Importantly, the act suspended literacy tests in states where less than halfof the voting-age population was registered or had voted in the 1964 election. This section of the law had immediate impact. By the end of 1965, a quarterof a million new African American voters were registered, one third by the federal examiners. The Southern states quickly challenged the new law in the courts. The states claimed the federal government was exceeding its authorityover voting issues. The Supreme Court upheld the act in South Carolina v.Katzenbach (1966).
In 1965, New York law and state constitution contained an English literacy requirement for residents voting in the state. This requirement affected several hundred thousand New York City residents from the U.S. territory of PuertoRico who only spoke Spanish. In reaction, another section, 4(e), of the 1965act established that persons successfully completing the sixth grade in an accredited school in Puerto Rico where instruction was in Spanish should be allowed to vote despite their inability to read or write English. Several registered New York City voters, including a person named Morgan who actively registered voters in New York City, were upset with the new act. They argued the section illegally prohibited New York's enforcement of the English literacy requirement.
Morgan filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaration that section 4(e) was constitutionally invalid. He also requested an injunction prohibiting Katzenbach, Attorney General of the UnitedStates, and the New York City Board of Elections from implementing section 4(e). A three-judge district court reviewed the case and found in favor of Morgan. The court issued an order blocking 4(e)'s implementation. The court heldby a 2-1 vote that Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when enacting the section. In reaction, Katzenbach appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
A Plain and Consistent Act
By a majority of 7-2, the Court reversed the lower court's ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that section 4(e) of the Voting RightsAct was a proper exercise of congressional power granted by the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the New York English literacy requirement could not be enforced to the extent that it was inconsistent with section 4(e). Brennan wrote that any judicial interpretation of Section 5 that would determine that a state law overrode an act of Congress "would depreciate both congressional resourcefulness and congressional responsibility for implementing the FourteenthAmendment." Brennan observed that the key question was not if the New York English literacy requirement denying the right to vote to certain persons violated the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it was to determine if 4(e) was "appropriate legislation to enforce the Equal Protection Clause."
Brennan noted that section 5 was broad in scope. He applied three tests to decide the case: (1) if the law was enacted to enforce the Equal Protection Clause; (2) if the law was "plainly adapted to that end"; and, (3) if the law was consistent with "the letter and spirit of the constitution."
Regarding the first test, Justice Brennan stated, "There can be no doubt thatsection 4(e) may be regarded as an enactment to enforce the Equal ProtectionClause" because Congress "explicitly declared" such. Brennan observed that "section 4(e) may be viewed as a measure to secure for the Puerto Rican community residing in New York nondiscriminatory treatment by government."
Concerning the second test, Brennan found that section 4(e) "may be readily seen as plainly adapted" to further the objectives of the Equal Protection Clause. It prohibited "New York from denying the right to vote to large segmentsof its Puerto Rican community," thus enhancing the Puerto Rican community'spolitical power. Such power "will be helpful in gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services for the entire Puerto Rican community." Section 4(e) therefore allowed the Puerto Rican minority to enjoy greater equality of civil rights and equal protection under the laws.
Regarding the third test concerning consistency "with the letter and spirit of the constitution," Brennan noted that Morgan alleged the act violated congressional powers under the Fifth Amendment. Morgan contended the standard wasnot applied equally, but only to those educated in schools located within United States jurisdiction. Those educated outside the territorial limits of theUnited States were, in essence, excluded. Congress, according to Morgan, hadthemselves violated the Constitution by not extending the rights recognizedin section 4(e) to all individuals educated in foreign schools.
Joined in dissent by Justice Stewart, Justice Harlan wrote that a key issue was whether New York could demonstrate a legitimate state interest in requiring English literacy to vote. Harlan believed the state's arguments before theCourt succeeded in passing that test. Besides, the federal government traditionally used the English literacy requirement in some other matters, such as naturalization of new citizens. In addition, New York was very experienced with governing non-English speaking residents. Of most concern to Harlan was that Congress inappropriately made an essentially judicial determination on theconstitutionality of the New York law. Congress should have acted only aftera court ruling had been made on the matter. The separation of powers betweenCongress and the judiciary, Harlan warned, were dangerously blurred by this ruling.
Impact
The Morgan ruling found that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 properly extended equal protection guarantees to Puerto Ricans in New York. Precedence created by the ruling was seen as limited to situations where Congress remedied state actions denying equal protection. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment was recognized as a positive grant of legislative power to Congress to determine when legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the FourteenthAmendment. The power is not absolute though. Congressional acts must demonstrate some reasonable possibility of addressing a legitimate equal protection concern. In Morgan, the Court found that Voting Rights Act of 1965 enabled the Puerto Rican minority to attain greater social equality and equal protection of the laws.
The decision combated a restrictive view of congressional powers in the Fourteenth Amendment as advocated by some, and added further strength to the 1965act in fighting racial discrimination. The decision played a role in formulating the 1968 Civil Rights Act. Congress relied on the Morgan decisionin expanding federal powers to prohibit racially motivated violence in hate crimes, and to outlaw private housing discrimination.
Actions of the 1960s led to more revisions later in voters' rights. The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18. The Voting Rights Act was amended and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982. These later revisions added use of bilingual ballots in some areas,prohibited literacy requirements, and allowed illiterate, blind, or disabledvoters to be assisted in the voting booth. The 1975 amendment allowed citizens living abroad to vote in federal elections through absentee ballot. In 1984, accessibility to the voting booth for the elderly was guaranteed. Several states challenged congressional legislation lowering the voting age in all elections to 18, and establishing residency and absentee voting requirements forpresidential elections.
Related Cases
- South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966).
- Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969).
- Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975).
- Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976).
User Comments Add a comment…