South Carolina v. Katzenbach
**Overview of South Carolina v. Katzenbach**
South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a significant Supreme Court case decided in 1966, which focused on the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act was designed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting practices, particularly in states with a history of such discrimination. The case arose when South Carolina challenged certain provisions of the act, specifically the prohibition of literacy tests and property requirements for voting, as well as the appointment of federal officials to oversee voter registration. The Supreme Court, in a decisive 8-1 ruling, upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, affirming Congress's authority to implement measures to protect voting rights for minorities. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that Congress could act against discriminatory practices without requiring judicial evidence of their unconstitutionality in every instance. This ruling not only reinforced the protections established by the Voting Rights Act but also set a precedent for congressional enforcement of civil rights, marking a crucial moment in the ongoing struggle for voting equality in the United States.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
Date: March 17, 1966
Citation: 383 U.S. 301
Issue: Right to vote
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prescribed remedies for states that had practiced racial discrimination in voting. Under the act, South Carolina was prevented from enforcing literacy tests and property requirements for voting, and federal officials were appointed to oversee the registration of voters in the state and ensure that racial discrimination did not take place. By an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1965 act, including the appointing of federal voting registrars in states with a record of discrimination against minorities in registering to vote. The decision was unanimous except for a partial dissent from Justice Hugo L. Black. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion for this landmark case, which became a benchmark in congressional enforcement of the Civil War Amendments by allowing Congress to proscribe a class of suspect practices without specifying in every case that the judiciary would hear evidence that the practices were unconstitutional.
