Oregon v. Mitchell
400 U.S. 112 (1970) (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate voter qualifications, such as age and residency, in federal elections, but the power to set voter qualifications for state and local elections is reserved to the states. Congress may, however, prohibit the use of literacy tests nationwide under its power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment's ban on racial discrimination in voting.
Facts:
- In 1970, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act Amendments.
- Title III of the Act lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18 for all federal, state, and local elections.
- Title II of the Act prohibited the use of literacy tests as a qualification for voting in any election nationwide for a period of five years.
- Title II also abolished state durational residency requirements as a precondition for voting in presidential and vice-presidential elections.
- The State of Oregon, which had a voting age of 21, challenged the constitutionality of the provision lowering the voting age.
- The State of Texas also challenged the 18-year-old vote provision.
- The State of Arizona had a literacy test and a voting age of 21, which conflicted with the federal Act.
- The State of Idaho had age and residency requirements that conflicted with the federal Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Oregon and Texas initiated original actions in the U.S. Supreme Court against the Attorney General of the United States, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the 18-year-old vote provision of the Act.
- The United States also initiated original actions in the U.S. Supreme Court against Arizona and Idaho, seeking to compel their compliance with the Act's provisions on age, literacy tests, and residency requirements.
- The Supreme Court consolidated the four cases for argument and decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 that (1) lower the voting age to 18 for all elections, (2) ban literacy tests nationwide, and (3) abolish state durational residency requirements for presidential elections, violate the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black (announcing the judgment of the Court)
On the three issues presented, the Court holds: (1) The provision lowering the voting age is constitutional for federal elections but unconstitutional for state and local elections. (2) The nationwide ban on literacy tests is constitutional. (3) The abolition of state durational residency requirements for presidential elections is constitutional. A majority of the Court concluded that Congress has the power under Article I, §4 and the Necessary and Proper Clause to set qualifications for federal elections, which includes setting a minimum age. However, a different majority found that the power to set qualifications for state and local elections is a core state function reserved by the Tenth Amendment, and Congress cannot use its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power to regulate this area without evidence that the age requirement is being used for racial discrimination. The Court unanimously upheld the literacy test ban as a valid exercise of Congress's power under §2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, based on extensive evidence that such tests have been used to disenfranchise voters on account of race. Finally, a majority upheld the residency provision, reasoning that such requirements impermissibly burden the constitutional right of interstate travel, and Congress has the power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect that right.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
No, the provisions lowering the voting age and abolishing residency requirements are unconstitutional for all elections. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to restrict the authority of states to allocate their political power, including setting voter qualifications. A detailed historical analysis of the Amendment's framing and ratification shows a clear and unanimous understanding that it did not affect state control over suffrage. Therefore, Congress has no power under the Fourteenth Amendment to legislate on age or residency for either state or federal elections. The power to set qualifications is reserved to the states. The literacy test ban, however, is a valid exercise of Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, which is specifically aimed at preventing racial discrimination in voting.
Dissenting - Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall
No, all three provisions are constitutional. Congress has broad authority under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. Congress could rationally conclude that denying the vote to citizens aged 18 to 21 is a form of arbitrary discrimination that violates equal protection, and the Court should defer to this legislative judgment. Likewise, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that residency requirements burden the right to travel and that literacy tests have a discriminatory effect on minority groups nationwide. Therefore, all three provisions represent appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Analysis:
This landmark case clarified the scope of congressional power under the enforcement clauses of the Civil War Amendments while reaffirming principles of federalism. The Court's fractured decision affirmed Congress's broad authority to combat racial discrimination in voting but set a significant limit on its power to regulate state elections on non-racial grounds. The split holding on the voting age—creating separate rules for federal and state elections—was viewed as functionally unworkable, leading directly and swiftly to the proposal and ratification of the 26th Amendment, which uniformly established the voting age at 18. The case remains a crucial study in the balance of power between Congress and the states over the administration of elections.
