Allen v. State Board of Elections
1969 U.S. LEXIS 2378, 393 U.S. 544, 22 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires states covered by the Act to obtain federal preclearance for any state enactment that alters election law in any way, not just those affecting voter registration. This includes changes that dilute voting power, alter candidate qualifications, or make a formerly elective office appointive.
Facts:
- Mississippi amended its state code in 1966 to permit counties to switch from electing members of the board of supervisors from single-member districts to electing them in county-wide, at-large elections.
- Mississippi passed another 1966 amendment that made the office of county superintendent of education appointive by the board of education in eleven specified counties, where previously the office had been elective.
- A third 1966 Mississippi amendment significantly increased the requirements for independent candidates to get on the general election ballot, including increasing signature requirements and barring anyone who voted in a primary from running as an independent.
- Following the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the Virginia Board of Elections issued a bulletin outlining a new procedure for election judges to assist illiterate voters with casting write-in ballots, as the existing state law required write-ins to be in the voter's own handwriting but provided no mechanism for assistance.
Procedural Posture:
- In three separate cases, qualified electors and potential candidates in Mississippi filed declaratory judgment actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
- The Mississippi plaintiffs argued that three new state election law amendments could not be enforced until they received preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- In a fourth case, functionally illiterate voters in Virginia sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging a state law and a related election bulletin concerning write-in votes.
- A three-judge District Court was convened for each of the four cases.
- In all four cases, the District Courts ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that the challenged enactments were not covered by Section 5, and dismissed the complaints.
- The plaintiffs in all four cases then brought direct appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 require federal preclearance for state election law changes beyond voter registration, such as altering the basis of voting from district to at-large, making an elective office appointive, or increasing requirements for independent candidates?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
Yes. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires preclearance for any state enactment which alters the election law of a covered State in even a minor way. The purpose of the Act was to combat both subtle and obvious forms of racial discrimination in voting. The Court reasoned that the Act's definition of 'voting' is broad, encompassing 'all action necessary to make a vote effective.' Changes like switching to at-large elections can dilute minority voting power, making an elective office appointive directly impacts a citizen's vote, and stricter candidate requirements can undermine voters' choices. Therefore, all such changes are considered a 'standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting' and must be submitted for federal review under Section 5.
Dissenting - Justice Black
While agreeing with the Court's interpretation of the statute, Justice Black argued that Section 5 is unconstitutional. He contended that requiring select states to obtain permission from the U.S. Attorney General or a federal court in D.C. to amend their own laws violates principles of federalism and state sovereignty. This procedure treats certain states as 'conquered provinces' and unconstitutionally degrades their power within the Union, a practice he believed the nation had long since repented.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Harlan
Partially Yes, Partially No. Section 5 should be interpreted more narrowly to cover only state laws that change voter qualifications or the manner in which elections are conducted, not those that restructure state government or could dilute voting power, like a switch to at-large elections. Justice Harlan argued that Section 5 was designed to be ancillary to Section 4's suspension of literacy tests, not to create a revolutionary expansion of federal oversight into state reapportionment issues. He would have affirmed the ruling on at-large elections but agreed that the changes to candidate requirements, the shift to an appointive office, and the new write-in procedure required preclearance. He also dissented from the majority's remedy, arguing that new elections should have been ordered.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Marshall
Justice Marshall concurred with the majority's broad interpretation of Section 5's scope. However, he dissented from the remedy provided in the Mississippi cases. Agreeing with Justice Harlan on this point, he argued that merely enjoining future enforcement of the un-cleared laws was insufficient and that the Court should have ordered new elections to be held under the pre-existing laws unless the states promptly obtained Section 5 approval.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the broad substantive scope of Section 5's preclearance requirement, transforming it into the most potent provision of the Voting Rights Act. By rejecting a narrow construction limited to voter registration, the Court empowered the Department of Justice to scrutinize thousands of state and local election changes, from polling place locations to redistricting plans. This fundamentally altered the federal-state balance in election administration in covered jurisdictions and made the federal government a key gatekeeper against potentially discriminatory voting practices for decades.
