SOUTH CAROLINA v. KATZENBACH

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
22 ORIG
Plaintiff 
South Carolina
Defendant 
Katzenbach
Decided By 
Warren Court (1965-1967)
Opinion 
383 U.S. 301 (1966)
Argued 
January 17-18, 1966
Decided 
Monday, March 7, 1966
Advocates
Charles Clark
(Argued the cause for the State of Mississippi, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)
Levin H. Campbell
(Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)
Archibald Cox
(Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
(Defendant, argued the cause pro se)
R. D. McIlwaine, III
(Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Virginia, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)
Francis J. Mizell, Jr.
(Argued the cause for the State of Alabama, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)
Daniel R. McLeod
(Argued the cause for the plaintiff)
David W. Robinson, II
(Argued the cause for the plaintiff)
Joe T. Patterson
(Argued the cause for the State of Mississippi, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)
Alan B. Handler
(Argued the cause for the State of New Jersey, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)
Richmond M. Flowers
(Argued the cause for the State of Alabama, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)
Jack P. F. Gremillion
(Argued the cause for the State of Louisiana, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)
E. Freeman Leverett
(Argued the cause for the State of Georgia, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)
Tags
Term:
Location: South Carolina General Assembly
Facts of the Case 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a "test or device" (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Federal examiners, under the Attorney General's jurisdiction, were empowered to intervene to investigate election irregularities.

Question 

Did the Act violate the states' rights to implement and control elections?

Conclusion 
Decision: 8 votes for Katzenbach, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Court upheld the law. Noting that the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment gave Congress "full remedial powers" to prevent racial discrimination in voting, the Act was a "legitimate response" to the "insidious and pervasive evil" which had denied blacks the right to vote since the Fifteenth Amendment's adoption in 1870.

Cite this Page
SOUTH CAROLINA v. KATZENBACH. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 13 May 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22_orig>.
SOUTH CAROLINA v. KATZENBACH, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22_orig (last visited May 13, 2013).
"SOUTH CAROLINA v. KATZENBACH," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22_orig.