Allen v. State Board of Elections

1968-10-14

Headline: Voting Rights Act Section 5 covers state election changes and blocks enforcement until federal approval, affecting at‑large elections, appointive offices, independent‑candidate rules, and write‑in voting.

Holding: The Court ruled that changes to state election rules—like at‑large voting, appointing school superintendents, stricter independent‑candidate rules, and write‑in procedures—fall under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and cannot be enforced until federally approved.

Real World Impact:

Requires federal preclearance before many state election changes.
Allows local citizens to obtain injunctions blocking unapproved rules.
Covers at‑large voting, appointive offices, independent‑candidate and write‑in rules.

Topics: voting rules, preclearance under Voting Rights Act, at‑large elections, write‑in voting

Summary

Background

These suits were brought by ordinary voters and potential candidates in Mississippi and Virginia who challenged recent state election changes. In Mississippi the challenges targeted a law letting counties shift from district to at‑large elections, a law making some county school superintendents appointive, and new rules tightening how independent candidates qualify. In Virginia illiterate voters challenged a board bulletin allowing election judges to assist with write‑in votes. Each case arose after the State changed its election rules while the State was covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Reasoning

The Court asked a simple practical question: are these kinds of state changes “voting” rules that must be cleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act before they are enforced? Relying on the Act’s text and legislative history, the majority concluded Section 5 reaches any change that alters the process or effectiveness of voting and thus covers the Mississippi and Virginia enactments. The Court also held private citizens may sue in their local federal courts to block enforcement when a covered State has not sought Section 5 approval. The Court reversed the Mississippi district courts, vacated the Virginia judgment, and ordered injunctions stopping enforcement until the States obtain the required federal review.

Real world impact

States covered by the Act must now treat many even‑seeming‑minor election changes as subject to federal preclearance or face injunctions. Local voters can ask a federal court to halt new rules they say were enacted without Section 5 approval. The ruling does not decide whether the laws are discriminatory; it only requires federal review before enforcement.

Dissents or concurrances

Some Justices urged a narrower reading of Section 5 or stronger remedies. One Justice argued Section 5 should be limited to procedures directly processing voters; others wanted courts to order new elections unless the State promptly sought approval.