South Carolina v. Katzenbach

1966-05-02

Headline: Voting-rights law upheld, allowing the federal government to suspend literacy tests, review new voting rules, and send federal examiners to register voters, immediately affecting covered Southern areas and aiding non-white voter access.

Holding: The Court upheld key parts of the Voting Rights Act as proper Fifteenth Amendment enforcement measures, denying South Carolina’s request to enjoin enforcement of those provisions.

Real World Impact:

Temporarily blocks states from enforcing literacy or property voting tests in covered areas.
Allows federal review before new voting rules take effect in covered jurisdictions.
Authorizes federal examiners to list and secure registration for qualified non-white voters.

Topics: voting rights, racial discrimination, federal oversight, literacy tests, voter registration

Summary

Background

The State of South Carolina sued the Attorney General and asked a federal court to block enforcement of parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that were applied to its elections. Because no facts were disputed and South Carolina wanted a ruling before its 1966 primaries, the Court expedited the case and many States joined the briefing and argument as interested parties.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Congress, under the Fifteenth Amendment, could adopt the Act’s remedies to end racial discrimination in voting. The Court reviewed the legislative record, evidence of long-standing discrimination, and the statute’s text. It concluded Congress acted within its power: the coverage formula, temporary suspension of literacy-type tests, federal review of new rules, and appointment of federal examiners are appropriate measures. The Court denied South Carolina’s request and dismissed the complaint as to the sections before it.

Real world impact

In covered areas the ruling stops states from enforcing certain literacy and related voting tests for five years. New local voting rules can be blocked until federal review or a court approves them. Federal examiners may test applicants and send certified lists to local officials, who must place eligible names on voting rolls. The coverage formula rested on Attorney General and Census findings of tests or low registration, but affected areas can seek termination through a special declaratory action. Some other parts of the Act were not decided and will be reviewed in later cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black largely agreed with the opinion but dissented as to §5, arguing it unconstitutionally forces States to seek advance federal approval and risks advisory rulings.