State of South Carolina v. Katzenbach, No. 22

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWARREN
Citation15 L.Ed.2d 769,86 S.Ct. 803,383 U.S. 301
Decision Date07 March 1966
Docket NumberNo. 22,O
PartiesSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas deB. KATZENBACH, Attorney General of the United States. riginal

383 U.S. 301
86 S.Ct. 803
15 L.Ed.2d 769
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff,

v.

Nicholas deB. KATZENBACH, Attorney General of the United States.

No. 22, Original.
Argued Jan. 17, 18, 1966.
Decided March 7, 1966.

[Syllabus from pages 301-305 intentionally omitted]

Page 305

David W. Robinson, II, and Daniel R. McLeod, Columbia, S.C., for plaintiff.

Atty. Gen. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, defendant, pro se.

R. D. McIlwaine, III, Richmond, Va., for Commonwealth of Virginia, as amicus curiae.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Baton Rouge, La., for State of Louisiana, as amicus curiae.

Francis J. Mizell, Jr., and Richmond M. Flowers, Montgomery, Ala., for

Page 306

State of Alabama, as amicus curiae.

Joe T. Patterson and Charles Clark, Jackson, Miss., for State of Mississippi, as amicus curiae.

E. Freeman Leverett, Atlanta, Ga., for State of Georgia, as amicus curiae.

Levin H. Campbell, Boston, Mass., and Archibald Cox, Washington, D.C., for Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae.

Alan B. Handler, Newark, for State of New Jersey, as amicus curiae.

Page 307

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

By leave of the Court, 382 U.S. 898, 86 S.Ct. 229, South Carolina has filed a bill of complaint, seeking a declaration that selected provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 19651 violate the Federal Constitution, and asking for an injunction against enforcement of these provisions by the Attorney General. Original jurisdiction is founded on the presence of a controversy between a State and a citizen of another State under Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution. See State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania, R. Co., 324 U.S. 439, 65 S.Ct. 716, 89 L.Ed. 1051. Because no issues of fact were raised in the complaint, and because of South Carolina's desire to obtain a ruling prior to its primary elections in June 1966, we dispensed with appointment of a special master and expedited our hearing of the case.

Recognizing that the questions presented were of urgent concern to the entire country, we invited all of the States to participate in this proceeding as friends of the Court. A majority responded by submitting or joining in briefs on the merits, some supporting South Carolina and others the Attorney General. 2 Seven of these States

Page 308

also requested and received permission to argue the case orally at our hearing. Without exception, despite the emotional overtones of the proceeding, the briefs and oral arguments were temperate, lawyerlike and constructive. All viewpoints on the issues have been fully developed, and this additional assistance has been most helpful to the Court.

The Voting Rights Act was designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century. The Act creates stringent new remedies for voting discrimination where it persists on a pervasive scale, and in addition the statute strengthens existing remedies for pockets of voting discrimination elsewhere in the country. Congress assumed the power to prescribe these remedies from § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, which authorizes the National Legislature to effectuate by 'appropriate' measures the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting. We hold that the sections of the Act which are properly before us are an appropriate means for carrying out Congress' constitutional responsibilities and are consonant with all other provisions of the Constitution. We therefore deny South Carolina's request that enforcement of these sections of the Act be enjoined.

I.

The constitutional propriety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be judged with reference to the historical experience which it reflects. Before enacting the measure, Congress explored with great care the problem of racial discrimination in voting. The House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary each held hearings for nine days and received testimony from a total of 67 wit-

Page 309

nesses.3 More than three full days were consumed discussing the bill on the floor of the House, while the debate in the Senate covered 26 days in all. 4 At the close of these deliberations, the verdict of both chambers was overwhelming. The House approved the bill by a vote of 328—74, and the measure passed the Senate by a margin of 79—18.

Two points emerge vividly from the voluminous legislative history of the Act contained in the committee hearings and floor debates. First: Congress felt itself confronted by an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution. Seond: Congress concluded that the unsuccessful remedies which it had prescribed in the past would have to be replaced by sterner and more elaborate measures in order to satisfy the clear commands of the Fifteenth Amendment. We pause here to summarize the majority reports of the House and Senate Committees, which document in considerable detail the factual basis for these reactions by Congress.5 See H.R.Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 8—16 (hereinafter cited as House Report); S.Rep.No. 162, pt. 3, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3—16, U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, p. 2437 (hereinafter cited as Senate Report).

Page 310

The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1870. Promptly thereafter Congress passed the Enforcement Act of 1870,6 which made it a crime for public officers and private persons to obstruct exercise of the right to vote. The statute was amended in the following year7 to provide for detailed federal supervision of the electoral process, from registration to the certification of returns. As the years passed and fervor for racial equality waned, enforcement of the laws became spotty and ineffective, and most of their provisions were repealed in 1894.8 The remnants have had little significance in the recently renewed battle against voting discrimination.

Meanwhile, beginning in 1890, the States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia enacted tests still in use which were specifically designed to prevent Negroes from voting.9 Typically, they made the ability to read and write

Page 311

a registration qualification and also required completion of a registration form. These laws were based on the fact that as of 1890 in each of the named States, more than two-thirds of the adult Negroes were illiterate while less than one-quarter of the adult whites were unable to read or write.10 At the same time, alternate tests were prescribed in all of the named States to assure that white illiterates would not be deprived of the franchise. These included grandfather clauses, property qualifications, 'good character' tests, and the requirement that registrants 'understand' or 'interpret' certain matter.

The course of subsequent Fifteenth Amendment litigation in this Court demonstrates the variety and persistence of these and similar institutions designed to deprive Negroes of the right to vote. Grandfather clauses were invalidated in Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 35 S.Ct. 926, 59 L.Ed. 1340, and Myers v. Anderson, 238 U.S. 368, 35 S.Ct. 932, 59 L.Ed. 1349. Procedural hurdles were struck down in Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 59 S.Ct. 872, 83 L.Ed. 1281. The white primary was outlawed in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987, and Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152. Improper challenges were nullified in United States v. Thomas, 362 U.S. 58, 80 S.Ct. 612, 4 L.Ed.2d 535. Racial gerrymandering was forbidden by Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110. Finally, discriminatory application of voting tests was condemned in Schnell v. Davis, 336 U.S. 933, 69 S.Ct. 749, 93 L.Ed. 1093; Alabama

Page 312

v. United States, 371 U.S. 37, 83 S.Ct. 145, 9 L.Ed.2d 112, and Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 85 S.Ct. 817, 13 L.Ed.2d 709.

According to the evidence in recent Justice Department voting suits, the latter stratagem is now the principal method used to bar Negroes from the polls. Discriminatory administration of voting qualifications has been found in all eight Alabama cases, in all nine Louisiana cases, and in all nine Mississippi cases which have gone to final judgment.11 Moreover, in almost all of these cases, the courts have held that the discrimination was pursuant to a widespread 'pattern or practice.' White applicants for registration have often been excused altogether from the literacy and understanding tests or have been given easy versions, have received extensive help from voting officials, and have been registered despite serious errors in their answers.12 Negroes, on the other hand, have typically been required to pass difficult versions of all the tests, without any outside assistance and without the slightest error.13 The good-morals require-

Page 313

ment is so vague and subjective that it has constituted an open invitation to abuse at the hands of voting officials.14 Negroes obliged to obtain vouchers from registered voters have found it virtually impossible to comply in areas where almost no Negroes are on the rolls.15

In recent years, Congress has repeatedly tried to cope with the problem by facilitating case-by-case litigation against voting discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 195716 authorized the Attorney General to seek injunctions against public and private interference with the right to vote on racial grounds. Perfecting amendments in the Civil Rights Act of 196017 permitted the joinder of States as parties defendant, gave the Attorney General access to local voting records, and authorized courts to register voters in areas of systematic discrimination. Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 196418 expedited the hearing of voting cases before three-judge courts and outlawed some of the tactics used...

To continue reading

Request your trial
690 practice notes
  • Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, No. 08–322.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 22, 2009
    ...as a failure. Early enforcement Acts were inconsistently applied and repealed with the rise of Jim Crow. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 310, 86 S.Ct. 803 , 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966) ; A. Keyssar, The Right to Vote 105–111 (2000). Another series of enforcement statutes in the 195......
  • Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, No. CV–12–894–PHX–ROS–NVW–RRC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • April 29, 2014
    ...perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 309, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures n......
  • Mahaley v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Civ. A. No. C 71-251
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • February 22, 1973
    ...districts replaced racial prohibitions with literacy tests and these were struck down, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 355 F. Supp. 1257 383 U.S. 301, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L. Ed.2d 769 (1966); Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072; and with v......
  • Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of N.J., Nos. 13–1713
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 17, 2013
    ...cases” such as when Congress enacts “remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared.” Id. (citing South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 328–29, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966)). However, the Court did not ultimately decide whether § 5 violated the equal sovereignty prin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
679 cases
  • Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, No. 08–322.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 22, 2009
    ...as a failure. Early enforcement Acts were inconsistently applied and repealed with the rise of Jim Crow. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 310, 86 S.Ct. 803 , 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966) ; A. Keyssar, The Right to Vote 105–111 (2000). Another series of enforcement statutes in the 195......
  • Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, No. CV–12–894–PHX–ROS–NVW–RRC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • April 29, 2014
    ...perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 309, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures n......
  • Mahaley v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Civ. A. No. C 71-251
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • February 22, 1973
    ...districts replaced racial prohibitions with literacy tests and these were struck down, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 355 F. Supp. 1257 383 U.S. 301, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L. Ed.2d 769 (1966); Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072; and with v......
  • Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of N.J., Nos. 13–1713
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 17, 2013
    ...cases” such as when Congress enacts “remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared.” Id. (citing South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 328–29, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966)). However, the Court did not ultimately decide whether § 5 violated the equal sovereignty prin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Article III Separation of Powers, Standing, and the Rejection of a 'Public Rights' Model of Environmental Citizen Suits
    • United States
    • The Clean Water Act and the Constitution. Legal Structure and the Public's Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment Part II
    • April 20, 2009
    ...8. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n.3 (1973); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 335 (1966); Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Water-man S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 112-14 (1948); Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 361......
  • POLITICAL TRUST, SOCIAL TRUST, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 36 Nbr. 2, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...Women Act as supported neither by the Commerce Clause nor by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment). (107.) South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966); Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. (108.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110 [section] 4, 79 Stat. 437, 438-39 (codified a......
  • Preface
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 574-1, March 2001
    • March 1, 2001
    ...(1964).21. 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819). 23 22. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 650 (1966); see also South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 326 (1966) (Fifteenth 23. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819).24. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).25. 134 U.S. 1......
  • MANUFACTURING SOVEREIGN STATE MOOTNESS.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 Nbr. 1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...of the court."). (148.) This is consistent with the modern Court's conception of state sovereignty. See supra Part III.A. (149.) See 383 U.S. 301, 323-29 (1966). (150.) 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982). (151.) 139 S. Ct. 1945, 1951 (2019) (quoting Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986)). (152.)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT