Cases by Issue - Voting

Bush v. Gore

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:31 +0000

Location

Florida Supreme Court

500 South Duval Street Tallahassee FL 32399

Tallahassee, FL 32399

United States

30° 26' 17.214" N, 84° 16' 59.1672" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-949

Petitioner

George W. Bush

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Albert Gore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 2000

Decided

Tuesday, December 12, 2000

Advocates

David Boies (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Joseph P. Klock (Argued the cause for petitioner Harris)

Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for petitioner Bush)

Facts of the Case

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.

Question

Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bush, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held, 5 to 4, that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5).

Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.

Gutierrez v. Ada

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-51

Petitioner

Gutierrez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ada

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 250 (2000)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1999

Decided

Wednesday, January 19, 2000

Advocates

Dennis P. Riordan (Argued the case for the respondents)

Seth M. Hufstedler (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Organic Act of Guam provides that that "if no [slate of] candidates [for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Guam] receives a majority of the votes cast in any election...a runoff election shall be held." The Election Commission certified that the Democratic slate of Carl T.C. Gutierrez for governor and Madeleine Z. Bordallo for lieutenant governor had defeated the Republican slate, Joseph F. Ada and Felix P. Camacho. Gutierrez and Bordallo had received a majority of the votes cast for gubernatorial slates in the 1998 Guam general election, but did not receive a majority of the total number of ballots that voters cast due to voters selecting write-in candidates, people voting for both slates, and blank ballots. The opposing Republican slate sought a writ of mandamus ordering a runoff election. According to Ada and Camacho, the phrase "in any election" means the majority as measured by the votes cast in the entire election, not simply in the race for governor. Gutierrez responded that "votes cast" meant actual votes cast for governor and lieutenant governor, rather than ballots in which the governor's contest is left blank. The District Court issued the writ and the Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed, interpreting the statutory phrase "majority of the votes cast in any election" to require that a slate receive a majority of the total number of ballots cast in the general election.

Question

Does the Organic Act of Guam require a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gutierrez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 48 U.S.C. 1421

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that "[t]he Guam Organic Act does not require a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Territory, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election." Justice Souter wrote for the Court that an "obvious reading" of the law requires only a majority of votes cast in that one specific race, "Congress did not shift its attention when it used 'any election' unadorned by a gubernatorial reference or other definite modifier."

Foster v. Love

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-670

Petitioner

Foster

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Love

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

522 U.S. 67 (1997)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1997

Decided

Tuesday, December 2, 1997

Advocates

M. Miller Baker (on behalf of the Respondents)

Richard I. Ieyoub (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides that "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations." 2 USC sections 1 and 7 provide that the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in an even- numbered year is established as the date for federal congressional and presidential elections. In 1975, Louisiana adopted an "open primary," which occurs before the uniform federal election day and in which all candidates appear on the ballot and all voters may vote. If a candidate for a given office receives a majority at the open primary, that candidate is elected and no further act is done on federal election day to fill that office. Louisiana voters challenged the open primary is a violation of federal law. Reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that Louisiana's system squarely "conflicts with the federal statutes that establish a uniform federal election day."

Question

Does Louisiana's open primary violate the federal statutes that establish a uniform federal election day?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Love, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 4, Paragraph 1: Elections Clause

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that when Louisiana's open primary is applied to select among congressional candidates in October, it conflicts with federal law and to that extent is void. The Court rejected the argument that Louisiana's system only concerns the manner, not the time, of a federal election. Justice Souter reasoned that a federal election occurs in Louisiana before the federal election date whenever a candidate receives a majority in the open primary.

Hunter v. Underwood

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-76

Appellee

Underwood

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hunter

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 222 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Advocates

Wilson Edward Still, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellees)

James D. Ward (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Underwood, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-328

Appellant

Popular Democratic Party

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Rodriguez

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 1 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1982

Advocates

Philip A. Lacovara (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Abe Fortas (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

In 1981, a representative of Puerto Rico's Popular Democratic Party ("Party") died in office. Searching for a replacement, the Governor of Puerto Rico held a "by-election" open to candidates of all parties. The Party challenged the Governor, alleging that under Puerto Rico statutes only candidates and electors affiliated with the Party could participate in the by-election. On appeal from a Superior Court judgment favoring the Party, Puerto Rico's Supreme Court modified the judgment holding that a by-election was only required if the party of the legislator vacating the seat fails to name a replacement within 60 days. Before Puerto Rico's Supreme Court could deliver its decision, the Party held an election open only to its members and, then, pursuant to the Supreme Court's mandate, swore in a new representative. Rodriguez appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Do Puerto Rico's statutes, authorizing a political party to appoint one of its own members as an interim replacement to a vacated seat, infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of association or equal protection?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Popular Democratic Party, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

No. The Court, in a unanimous opinion, began by noting that the Constitution does not compel a fixed method of selecting state or local representatives. As such, the Puerto Rican Commonwealth legislature could vest exclusive interim appointment power in parties affiliated with the previous incumbent. This scheme is particularly reasonable in light of Puerto Rico's interest in maintaining continuity of party representation until the next general election and insuring its legislature's delicate balance of minority representation.

Rogers v. Lodge

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:15 +0000

Location

Burke County

602 N Liberty St Waynesboro GA 30830

Waynesboro, GA 30830

United States

33° 5' 25.9152" N, 82° 0' 55.764" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2100

Appellee

Lodge

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rogers

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 613 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1982

Advocates

E. Freeman Leverett (Argued the cause for the appellants)

David F. Walbert (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Eight black citizens of Burke County, Georgia, challenged the at-large system of elections within the county. Although a substantial number of blacks lived within the county, no minority candidate had ever been elected to the Burke County Board of Commissioners, the chief governing body. To be elected, candidates had to receive a majority of the votes cast in the primary or general election.

Question

Did the system of elections violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Burke County's black citizens?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lodge, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the at-large system of elections in Burke County violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that the at-large system was operated as a purposeful device to further racial discrimination. The Court held that there was extensive historical evidence that the county had impeded the political participation of black citizens and that the at-large system minimized even further the ability of blacks to participate in the political process. The Court also upheld the system of single-member districts established by a district court.

Mobile v. Bolden

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:12 +0000

Location

Mobile City Council

205 Government Street Mobile AL 36602

Mobile, AL 36602

United States

30° 41' 22.4808" N, 88° 2' 33.8316" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1844

Appellee

Bolden

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mobile

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 55 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1979

Reargued:

Monday, October 29, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Advocates

James U. Blacksher (on behalf of Appellees Bolden Et Al)

J. U. Blacksher (Reargued the cause for the appellees)

Charles S. Rhyne (Reargued the cause for the appellants)

James P. Turner (Reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Eric Schnapper (on behalf of Appellees Brown Et Al)

William H. Allen (on behalf of Appellants Williams Et Al)

Facts of the Case

Wiley L. Bolden and other residents of Mobile, Alabama brought a class action on behalf of all black citizens in Mobile. They argued that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at-large unfairly diluted the voting strength of black citizens. A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Bolden.

Question

Did the at-large system violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mobile, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 15: Fifteenth Amendment

No. The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not entail "the right to have Negro candidates elected," and that only purposefully discriminatory denials of the freedom to vote on the basis of race demanded constitutional remedies. The Court also found that multimember legislative districts were not unconstitutional per se; such legislative apportionments only violated the Fourteenth Amendment if they were "conceived or operated as [a] purposeful devic[e] to further racial. . .discrimination." In short, the Court held that facially neutral actions were unconstitutional only if motivated by discriminatory purposes.

Williams v. Brown

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-357

Appellee

Brown

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Williams

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 236 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1979

Reargued:

Monday, October 29, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Williams, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 15: Fifteenth Amendment

None

Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-515

Appellee

Tuscaloosa

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Holt Civic Club

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 60 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, November 28, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Tuscaloosa, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Briscoe v. Bell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-60

Petitioner

Briscoe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 404 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Briscoe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Hill v. Stone

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1723

Appellee

Stone

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hill

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 289 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Stone, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Richardson v. Ramirez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1589

Petitioner

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ramirez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 24 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Richardson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reduction in Representation Clause

None

O'brien v. Skinner

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1058

Appellee

Skinner

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

O'brien

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 524 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, January 16, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for O'brien, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Goosby v. Osser

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6316

Petitioner

Goosby

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Osser

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 512 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Goosby, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Roudebush v. Hartke

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-66

Appellee

Hartke

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Roudebush

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 70-67

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 15 (1972)

Argued

Monday, December 13, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Roudebush, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 1: Congressional Qualifications

None

Gordon v. Lance

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gordon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lance

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 1 (1971)

Argued

Monday, January 18, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gordon, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Oregon v. Mitchell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

43 ORIG

Petitioner

Oregon

Respondent

Mitchell

Consolidation

No. 44 ORIG

No. 46 ORIG

No. 47 ORIG

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 112 (1970)

Argued

Monday, October 19, 1970

Decided

Monday, December 21, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oregon, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Phoenix v. Kolodziejski

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

1066

Appellee

Kolodziejski

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Phoenix

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

399 U.S. 204 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, March 31, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, June 23, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kolodziejski, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Evans v. Cornman

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

236

Appellee

Cornman

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Evans

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

398 U.S. 419 (1970)

Argued

Thursday, January 22, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Cornman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Cipriano v. City Of Houma

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

705

Appellee

City Of Houma

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cipriano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 701 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, April 24, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Cipriano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Kramer v. Union School District

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:03 +0000

Location

Union Free School District No. 15 Cedarhurst, NY 11516

United States

40° 37' 36.12" N, 73° 43' 40.44" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

258

Appellant

Morris H. Kramer et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Union School District

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 621 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Advocates

Osmond K. Fraenkel (argued the cause for the appellant)

John P. Jehu (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Section 2012 of the New York Education Law permitted school districts to limit eligible voters in school district elections to citizens owning or leasing taxable real property and parents of children enrolled in public schools. Union School District No. 15 applied these restrictions. On April 25, 1965, Morris H. Kramer, a resident of district 15 who resided with his parents and had no children, attempted to register for the local school district elections. His application was rejected for failure to comply with the restrictions. Kramer filed a class-action suit against the school board in federal court, claiming his constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. The district court initially declined to hear his constitutional claims, but, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit directed the district court to hear Kramer's claim. On hearing the complaint, the court found no constitutional violation and denied Kramer's claim.

Question

Did the requirement that he be a landowner or parent of a student to vote in school district elections violate Kramer's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kramer, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a 5-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court accepted Kramer's argument that all district residents share substantial interest in school meeting decisions. While the statute purported to limit voting rights to those who were "primarily interested" in the election's outcome, the Court found the structure of the law too broad to achieve this goal. The Court concluded that such restrictions must be tailored to achieve the stated goal, and the current classifications "permit inclusion of many persons who have, at best, a remote and indirect interest in school affairs and, on the other hand, exclude others who have a distinct and direct interest in the school meeting decisions."

Mcdonald v. Board Of Election

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Board Of Election

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mcdonald

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 802 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 19, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Board Of Election, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:00 +0000

Location

Virginia General Assembly

9th and Grace Street Richmond VA 23219

Richmond, VA 23219

United States

37° 32' 23.8416" N, 77° 26' 4.758" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Virginia Board of Elections

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harper

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Butts v. Harrison, Governor of Virginia, No. 655

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 663 (1966)

Argued

January 25-26, 1966

Decided

Thursday, March 24, 1966

Advocates

Allison W. Brown, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants Harper et al)

Robert L. Segar (Argued the cause for the appellant Butts)

J. A. Jordan, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellant Butts)

George D. Gibson (Argued the cause for the appellees, Virginia Board of Elections and Harrison, in both cases)

Facts of the Case

Annie E. Harper, a resident of Virginia, filed suit alleging that the state's poll tax was unconstitutional. After a three-judge district court dismissed the complaint, the case went to the Supreme Court. This case was decided together with Butts v. Harrison.

Question

Did the Virginia poll tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Harper, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that making voter affluence an electoral standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that wealth or fee-paying had no relation to voting qualifications. The Court also noted that the Equal Protection Clause was not "shackled to the political theory of a particular era" and that notions of what constituted equal treatment under the Clause were subject to change.

Harman v. Forssenius

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

360

Appellee

Forssenius

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harman

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 528 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Harman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 24: Twenty-Fourth Amendment

None

Carrington v. Rash

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Carrington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rash

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 89 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, January 28, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Carrington, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Louisiana v. United States

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:00 +0000

Location

Louisiana General Assembly

900 North Third Street Baton Rouge LA 70804

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

United States

30° 27' 19.6488" N, 91° 11' 18.5892" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

United States

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 145 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, January 26, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Advocates

Harry J. Kron, Jr. (Assistant Attorney General of Louisiana, argued the cause for appellants)

Louis F. Claiborne (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

The Attorney General on behalf of the United States sued Louisiana in a Louisiana federal district court alleging that the state had denied and would continue to deny African-Americans the right to vote. In 1898 Louisiana adopted a constitutional amendment that imposed burdensome requirements for voter registration, but which had a clause exempting those people registered to vote as of January 1, 1867 and the son or grandson of such people. African- Americans were not entitled to vote as of January 1, 1867. The district court agreed with the United States and held that Louisiana's requirements were unconstitutional.

Question

Are the Louisiana constitution's voter registration requirements unconstitutional?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1971)

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Louisiana constitution's voter registration requirements are unconstitutional. With Justice Hugo L. Black writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that the registration provisions stood in conflict with the Fifteenth Amendment's and 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)'s prohibitions against discrimination in voting because of race.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II disagreed that 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a) was applicable.

United States v. Mississippi

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Mississippi

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 128 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, January 26, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1971)

None

Anderson v. Martin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Martin

Respondent

Anderson

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 399 (1964)

Argued

November 20-21, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Anderson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Gomillion v. Lightfoot

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:58 +0000

Location

Alabama General Assembly

600 Dexter Avenue Montgomery AL 36104

Montgomery, AL 36104

United States

32° 22' 39.5544" N, 86° 18' 6.786" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gomillion

Respondent

Lightfoot

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

364 U.S. 339 (1960)

Argued

October 18-19, 1960

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1960

Advocates

Philip Elman (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)

Robert L. Carter (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

James J. Carter (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Fred D. Gray (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

An act of the Alabama legislature re-drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, replacing what had been a region with a square shape with a twenty- eight sided figure. The effect of the new district was to exclude essentially all blacks from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a district where no whites lived.

Question

Did the redrawing of Tuskegee's electoral district boundaries violate the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents the United States or any individual state from denying a citizen the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gomillion, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 15: Fifteenth Amendment

The unanimous Court held that Act 140 of the Alabama legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Justice Frankfurter admitted that states are insulated from judicial review when they exercise power "wholly within the domain of state interest." However, in this case, Alabama's representatives were unable to identify "any countervailing municipal function" which the act was designed to serve. It was clear to the Court that the irregularly shaped district was drawn with only one purpose in mind, namely, to deprive blacks of political power.

United States v. Alabama

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

398

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 602 (1960)

Argued

Monday, May 2, 1960

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1957

None

United States v. Thomas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

667

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Thomas

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 58 (1960)

Argued

February 23-24, 1960

Decided

Monday, February 29, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Raines

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Raines

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 17 (1960)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1960

Decided

Monday, February 29, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1252

None

Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

584

Petitioner

Northampton Election Bd.

Respondent

Lassiter

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 45 (1959)

Argued

May 18-19, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Northampton Election Bd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None