Page!1 I. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301; 86 S. Ct. 803; 15 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1966) II. Facts: Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using any kind of test at polls that may prevent a citizen from being able to vote - literacy tests, etc. When this provision was violated, federal examiners were allowed to intervene and investigate III. Issue(s): Whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violated the states power to hold and control elections as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment? IV. Holding (8-1) Affirmed: Enforcement Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress full remedial powers to stop racial discrimination Act considered a legitimate response to the Jim Crow laws ( evil ) that had prevented blacks from voting since the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment V. Significance: Upheld the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Expanded the power of the federal government in cases of voting rights Court s response to prevailing Jim Crow laws Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the Court: The Voting Rights Act was designed by Congress to bash 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 the remedies from Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment which authorizes the National Legislature to
Page!2 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 South Carolina contends that [ ] to allow an exercise of this authority by Congress would be to rob the courts of the rightful constitutional role. On the contrary, Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment expressly declares that Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. [ ] Accordingly, in addition to the courts, Congress has full remedial powers to effectuate the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting. [ ] The [Voting Rights Act of 1965] intentionally confines these remedies to a small number of States and political subdivisions Congress had learned that substantial voting discrimination presently occurs in certain sections of the country [ ] and chose to limit its attention to the geographic areas where immediate action seemed necessary Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat wide-spread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims After enduring nearly a century of widespread resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress has marshaled an array of potent weapons against the evil, with authority of the Attorney General to employ them effectively. [ ] We here hold that the portions of the Voting Rights Act properly before us are a valid means for carrying out the commands of the Fifteenth Amendment. [ ] The bill of complaint is Dismissed.
Page!3 Selections from The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (United States Department of Justice) An Act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes. SEC. 2. No voting qualifications or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. SEC. 3 (a) Whenever the Attorney General institutes a proceeding under any statute to enforce the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment in any State or political subdivision the court shall authorize the appointment of Federal examiners by the United States Civil Service Commission to serve for such a period of time and for such political subdivision as the court shall determine is appropriate to enforce the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment. (b) If, during a proceeding instituted by the Attorney General, the court finds that a test or device has been used for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, the State shall suspend the use of tests and devices in a manner deemed appropriate by the court. (c) If, during a proceeding instituted by the Attorney General, the court finds that violations of the fifteenth amendment have occurred within the territory of a State, the court shall retain jurisdiction for a period deemed appropriate by the court, during which no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting in place during the proceeding will be in effect, unless deemed acceptable by the court. SEC. 4 (a) To assure that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is not denied or abridged on account of race or color, no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or
Page!4 device in any State. (b) The remedial sections of this Act automatically apply to any State, or to any separate political subdivision such a s a county or parish, for which two findings have been made: (1) the Attorney General has determined that on November 1, 1964, it maintained a test or device, and (2) the Director of the Census has determined that less than 50 percent of its voting-age residents were registered on November 1, 1964, or voted in the presidential election of 1964. SEC. 5 In the aforementioned States, all new voting regulations will be suspended pending review by federal authorities to determine whether their use would perpetuate voting discrimination. Amendments Congress extended Section 5 for five years in 1970 and for seven years in 1975. During the hearings on these extensions Congress heard extensive testimony concerning the ways in which voting electorates were manipulated through gerrymandering, annexations, adoption of atlarge elections, and other structural changes to prevent newly-registered black voters from effectively using the ballot. Congress also heard extensive testimony about voting discrimination that had been suffered by Hispanic, Asian and Native American citizens, and the 1975 amendments added protections from voting discrimination for language minority citizens. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), however, the Supreme Court required that any constitutional claim of minority vote dilution must include proof of a racially discriminatory purpose, a requirement that was widely seen as making such claims far more difficult to prove. Congress renewed in 1982 the special provisions of the Act, triggered by coverage under Section 4 for twenty-five years. Congress renewed the special provisions of the Act in 2006 as part of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara Jordan, William Velazquez and Dr. Hector Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.
Page!5 I. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186; 82 S. Ct. 691; 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962) II. Facts: Colgrove v. Green (1946): malapportionment apportionment in general of state legislative districts is an issue left to the states, not mentioned in the Constitution In Tennessee, malapportionment resulted in the rural vote counting almost 4 times as more as the urban vote III. Issue(s): Whether malapportionment among legislative districts violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? - Tennessee had ignored recent population shifts - failure to reapportion = unequal treatment of voters IV. Holding (6-2) Reversed and Remanded: Colgrove established that the Court did not have a place in such affairs - now justiciable - politcal question Remanded the decision of apportionment to the State of Tennessee V. Significance: Expanded the power of the judiciary in it s ability to interfere with state legislative districts Defined political nature Defended the fundamental idea of a Democratic Republic Removed some power from the states in terms of deciding and rendering legislative districts - but still remanded the decision to the State of Tennessee Associate Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court: Tennessee s standard for allocating legislative representation among her counties is the total number of qualified voters resident in the respective counties, subject only to minor qualifications. Decennial reapportionment in compliance with the constitutional scheme was
Page!6 effected by the General Assembly each decade from 1871 to 1901. The 1871 apportionment was preceded by an 1870 statute requiring an enumeration. [ ] In 1901, the General Assembly abandoned separate enumeration in favor of reliance upon the Federal Census and passed the Apportionment Act here in controversy. In the more than sixty years since that action, all proposals in both Houses of the General Assembly for reapportionment have failed to pass. Between 1901 and 1961, Tennessee has experienced substantial growth and redistribution of her population. In 1901 the population was 2,020,616, of whom 487,380 were eligible to vote. The 1960 Federal Census reports the State s population at 3,567,089, of whom 2,092,891 are eligible to vote. The relative standings of the counties in terms of qualified voters have changed significantly We come, finally, to the ultimate inquiry whether our precedents as to what constitutes a nonjusticiable political question bring the case before us under the umbrella of that doctrine We find [no reason it should not be]: The question here is the consistency of the state action with the Federal Constitution We conclude that the complaint s allegations of a denial of equal protection preset a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and a decision. The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgement of the District Court is revered and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page!7 Which States Saw Voter Turnout Jump, Decline Most Last Year? Thirty-eight states saw voter turnout drop last year, driven in large part by young adults and non-hispanic whites heading to the polls at lower rates. BY MIKE MACIAG MAY 13, 2013 Most states saw voter turnout drop last year, driven in large part by young adults and non- Hispanic whites heading to the polls at lower rates than in years past. [ ] A few states did, though, experience a noticeable uptick in turnout. Mississippi recorded the largest increase as eligible voter turnout swelled from 69.7 percent in 2008 to 74.5 percent last year also the nation s highest rate behind the District of Columbia. The state saw a similar jump in the percentage of eligible voters who were registered, up 7.2 percent from 2008. So how did Mississippi have such a significant increase while turnout plummeted elsewhere? The answer is indicative of a national trend that saw eligible black voters turn out in record numbers. The Census Bureau estimates 82.4 percent of eligible blacks voted in Mississippi, up nearly 10 percent from 2008. Here s a table breaking down voter turnout in the state, comparing 2008 and 2012 estimates: 2012 % Voter Turnout 2008 % Voter Turnout Total 74.5 69.7 White non-hispanic 71.8 68.4 Black 82.4 72.9 Nationwide, the Census Bureau estimates 66.2 percent of eligible black voters casted ballots, a historic high that increased 1.5 percent from 2008. It marked the first time that blacks voted at a higher rate than whites since the Census began tracking eligible voters in 1996. By contrast, national turnout among other race and ethnic groups fell slightly from 2008. Non-Hispanic white turnout decreased 2 percentage points; Hispanic turnout decreased 1.9 Governing: The States and Localities Magazine
Page!8 percent and turnout for Asian voters, who participated at the lowest rate of any group, dipped 0.3 percent. Voting patterns among racial groups were not uniform across all regions, though. Black voter turnout surpassed non-hispanic white voters in much of the eastern part of the country, particularly in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and New York. In the central region -- stretching from North Dakota down to Texas -- turnout was roughly the same. Out west, turnout among non-hispanic whites continued to exceed that of black voters. Governing: The States and Localities Magazine
Page!9 Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013) Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court: [ ] Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramati-cally. Shelby County contends that the preclearance re-quirement, even without regard to its disparate coverage, is now unconstitutional. Its arguments have a good deal of force. In the covered jurisdictions, [v]oter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels. Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 202. The tests and devices that blocked access to the ballot have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years Those conclusions are not ours alone. Congress said the same when it reauthorized the Act in 2006, writing that [s]ignificant progress has been made in eliminating first generation barriers experienced by minority voters, including increased numbers of registered minority voters, minority voter turnout, and minority representation in Congress, State legislatures, and local elected offices. The House Report elaborated that the number of African-Americans who are registered and who turn out to cast ballots has increased significantly over the last 40 years, particularly since 1982, and noted that [i]n some circumstances, minorities register to vote and cast ballots at levels that surpass those of white voters. That Report also explained that there have been significant increases in the number of African-Americans serving in elected offices ; more specifically, there has been approximately a 1,000 percent increase since 1965 in the number of African-American elected officials in the six States originally covered by the Voting Rights Act.
Page!10 U.S. Census Data: Voter Registration and Turnout, November 2012 US Citizen Total Population White non- Hispanic Total Populat ion Total Citizen Populat ion Reported registered Reported not registered No response to registration 1 Reported voted Reported did not vote No response to voting 2 Reporte d register ed Reporte d voted Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Percent Percent Both sexes.total 155,615 152,862 112,706 73.7 21,221 13.9 18,935 12.4 98,041 64.1 36,594 23.9 18,226 11.9 72.4 63.0.18 to 24 16,733 16,492 9,168 55.6 4,500 27.3 2,823 17.1 6,933 42.0 6,859 41.6 2,700 16.4 54.8 41.4.25 to 44 47,575 46,276 32,846 71.0 7,499 16.2 5,932 12.8 27,216 58.8 13,446 29.1 5,615 12.1 69.0 57.2.45 to 64 57,712 56,870 43,811 77.0 6,343 11.2 6,716 11.8 39,507 69.5 10,711 18.8 6,652 11.7 75.9 68.5.65 to 74 18,866 18,704 15,198 81.3 1,550 8.3 1,957 10.5 14,058 75.2 2,776 14.8 1,870 10.0 80.6 74.5.75& over 14,728 14,520 11,683 80.5 1,329 9.2 1,507 10.4 10,327 71.1 2,803 19.3 1,390 9.6 79.3 70.1 US Citizen Total Population Black Total Populat ion Total Citizen Populat ion Reported registered Reported not registered No response to registration 1 Reported voted Reported did not vote No response to voting 2 Reporte d register ed Reporte d voted Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Percent Percent Both sexes.total 28,709 26,915 19,680 73.1 3,076 11.4 4,158 15.5 17,813 66.2 5,051 18.8 4,051 15.0 68.5 62.0.18 to 24 4,621 4,363 2,552 58.5 898 20.6 914 20.9 2,123 48.7 1,385 31.7 856 19.6 55.2 45.9.25 to 44 10,598 9,615 6,986 72.7 1,121 11.7 1,508 15.7 6,246 65.0 1,858 19.3 1,510 15.7 65.9 58.9.45 to 64 9,779 9,310 7,223 77.6 786 8.4 1,301 14.0 6,734 72.3 1,314 14.1 1,262 13.6 73.9 68.9.65 to 74 2,193 2,125 1,716 80.7 173 8.1 237 11.1 1,614 75.9 270 12.7 241 11.3 78.3 73.6.75 & over 1,519 1,501 1,204 80.2 99 6.6 198 13.2 1,096 73.1 223 14.9 181 12.1 79.3 72.2
Page!11 US Citizen Total Population Hispanic Total Populat ion Total Citizen Populat ion Reported registered Reported not registered No response to registration 1 Reported voted Reported did not vote No response to voting 2 Reporte d register ed Reporte d voted Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Percent Percent Both sexes.total 35,204 23,329 13,697 58.7 6,026 25.8 3,605 15.5 11,188 48.0 8,765 37.6 3,376 14.5 38.9 31.8.18 to 24 6,274 4,902 2,219 45.3 1,757 35.8 926 18.9 1,677 34.2 2,388 48.7 837 17.1 35.4 26.7.25 to 44 16,178 9,366 5,532 59.1 2,470 26.4 1,363 14.6 4,365 46.6 3,719 39.7 1,282 13.7 34.2 27.0.45 to 64 9,591 6,495 4,197 64.6 1,370 21.1 928 14.3 3,609 55.6 1,993 30.7 893 13.8 43.8 37.6.65 to 74 1,838 1,456 996 68.4 249 17.1 211 14.5 884 60.7 371 25.4 201 13.8 54.2 48.1.75 & over 1,323 1,110 753 67.9 180 16.2 177 15.9 653 58.9 295 26.6 162 14.6 56.9 49.4
Page!12 U.S. Census Data: Congressional Districts Florida-22 Total population: 734,319 White: 595,941 Black: 86,798 Illinois-4 Total population: 712,077 White: 439,584 Black: 31,787
Page!13 Alabama-6 Total population: 697,436 White: 555,776 Black: 104,159 Maryland-2 Total population: 745,135 White: 415,253 Black: 247,501