Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MORGAN v. KATZENBACH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


November 15, 1965

John P. MORGAN and Christine Morgan, Plaintiffs,
v.
Nicholas DeB. KATZENBACH, as Attorney General of the United States, and New York City Board of Elections consisting of James M. Power, Thomas Mallee, Maurice J. O'Rourke, and John R. Crews, Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: HOLTZOFF

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

 The question presented in this case is whether the Congress has constitutional power to regulate by statute the qualifications of voters and to supersede the requirements prescribed by the States. Specifically the issue is the constitutionality of Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which in effect provides that no person who has been educated in an American school in which the predominant language is other than English, shall be disqualified from voting under any literacy test. As a corollary, the ultimate problem is whether this provision of the Act of Congress supersedes the literacy test for voters prescribed by the constitution and statutes of the State of New York, which impose the ability to read and write English as a requirement for voting.

 The action is brought by voters in the City of New York, who claim that the weight of their votes is being adversely affected by the fact that numerous citizens living in New York City, who have migrated from Puerto Rico and who read and write only in the Spanish language, are being permitted by the local authorities to vote in disregard of the State literacy test and in compliance with the Act of Congress, which the plaintiffs claim is unconstitutional when it conflicts with State law. The defendants are the Attorney General of the United States and the members of the Board of Elections of the City of New York. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining compliance with the Act of Congress. In view of the fact that this action is brought to enjoin the enforcement of an Act of Congress on the ground of its repugnance to the Constitution of the United States, a statutory three-judge court was convened, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2282 and 2284. The United States has been permitted to intervene in support of the validity of the Act of Congress, 28 U.S.C. § 2403, and Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Attorney General of the State of New York has filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs' contention.

 The plaintiffs clearly have a standing to sue. A voter who claims that the weight of his vote is being diluted or impaired by the ballots of others who are not legally entitled to vote, has a right to challenge their right of suffrage and to bring appropriate proceedings to prevent their votes from being cast or counted. *fn1"

 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act of August 6, 1965, Public Law 89-110, U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News, p. 2326 et seq.) Section 14(b), provides as follows:

 

(b) No court other than the District Court for the District of Columbia or a court of appeals in any proceeding under section 9 shall have jurisdiction to issue any declaratory judgment pursuant to section 4 or section 5 or any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction against the execution or enforcement of any provision of this Act or any action of any Federal officer or employee pursuant hereto.

 This provision confers on this Court exclusive jurisdiction of this action. In fact the Attorney General of the United States concedes that this Court has jurisdiction, although the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York contests it. We conclude that jurisdiction exists. *fn2" The matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment.

 The Constitution of the State of New York, Article II, Section 1, which defines the qualifications of voters, provides, in part, as follows:

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, after January first, one thousand nine hundred twenty-two, no person shall become entitled to vote by attaining majority, by naturalization or otherwise, unless such person is also able, except for physical disability, to read and write English.

 This requirement is reiterated in Section 150 of the Election Laws of the State of New York, *fn3" the pertinent provision of which reads as follows:

 

In the case of a person who became entitled to vote in this state by attaining majority, by naturalization or otherwise after January first, nineteen hundred twenty-two, such person must, in addition to the foregoing provisions, be able, except for physical disability, to read and write English.

 It appears from the papers annexed to the motions before the Court and it is undisputed that beginning in about 1940 there was a large migration to New York City of citizens of the United States from Puerto Rico, and that there are several hundred thousand such persons now living in New York. About half of them are unable to read or speak English, but many of them are able to read and write Spanish, because the public schools of Puerto Rico are conducted largely in that language. Thus there is a large group of American citizens residing in New York who are disqualified from voting because of the New York literacy test. It is reasonable to assume that undoubtedly there are other citizens who are also unable to meet the literacy test and are likewise disqualified from voting.

 The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was enacted by Congress and became law on August 6, 1965, as heretofore stated, contains the following provision in Section 4(e):

 

(e) (1) Congress hereby declares that to secure the rights under the fourteenth amendment of persons educated in American-flag schools in which the predominant classroom language was other than English, it is necessary to prohibit the States from conditioning the right to vote of such persons on ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter in the English language.

 

(2) No person who demonstrates that he has successfully completed the sixth primary grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant classroom language was other than English, shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his inability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter in the English language, except that in States in which State law provides that a different level of education is presumptive of literacy, he shall demonstrate that he has successfully completed an equivalent level of education in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant classroom language was other than English.

 If the foregoing Congressional provision is valid, it pro tanto nullifies the constitutional and statutory provisions of New York state, which impose an English literacy test on voters. It would require New York not to apply the literacy requirement exacted by its constitution and laws to voters who have been educated in a public school or accredited private school, in any State, territory, District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in which the predominant language was other than English. The constitutional and statutory enactments of the State of New York would be abrogated and nullified to that extent.

 It is urged by the plaintiffs that the Congressional enactment is invalid and unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is primarily intended to prevent discriminatory administration of the right to register and vote. Potent machinery is created by the statute to achieve this end. Section 4(e) is, however, completely and entirely disassociated from the rest of the Act and constitutes no part of the scheme of the legislation. The measure originated in the Senate. Section 4(e) was not in the bill as reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. It was inserted by an amendment from the floor. After the bill passed the Senate, the House of Representatives struck out the entire bill except the enacting clause and substituted a different measure, which again did not include any such provision. Section 4(e) was, however, re-inserted by the Conference Committee and remained in the measure as finally passed. It is quite apparent that the Section did not receive consideration by any legislative Committee in either House. While Section 4(e) was directed at the Puerto Rican situation in New York, which has already been briefly described, actually it is much broader in its phraseology and scope and conceivably may be applicable to many other citizens who are illiterate in English, and is effective throughout the United States.

 Traditionally and historically the qualifications of voters has been invariably a matter regulated by the States. This subject is one over which the Congress has no power to legislate. Thus Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, provides as follows:

 

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

 Article I, Section 4, provides as follows:

 

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, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 It will be observed that this Section does not include the power to prescribe requisites for the right of suffrage. Power to make or alter regulations concerning "the times, places and manner of holding elections" does not comprise authority to regulate qualifications for voters. No express or implied power is conferred by the Constitution on Congress to legislate concerning requirements for voters in the several States. The matter is within the purview of the Tenth Amendment, which reads as follows:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 The right of suffrage is not a privilege and immunity of a citizen of the United States as such, but is a right conferred by the States. In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall. 162, 177, 22 L. Ed. 627, Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in speaking for a unanimous bench, stated:

 

For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.

 In that case it was held that the States had the power of excluding women from the right to vote. It required a Constitutional amendment to grant suffrage to women.

 In Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 632, 24 S. Ct. 573, 575, 48 L. Ed. 817, the same theory was again enunciated:

 

The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the Federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. Ed. 627. It may not be refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a state is within the jurisdiction of the state itself, to be exercised as the state may direct, and upon such terms as it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals, in violation of the Federal Constitution.

 The doctrine that the right to vote is not a privilege derived from the United States, but is conferred by the State, was reiterated in Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277, 283, 58 S. Ct. 205, 208, 82 L. Ed. 252, in the following manner:

 

Privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the State and, save as restrained by the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the state may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate.

 In that case the Supreme Court unanimously held that the States had power to impose a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting. It required a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the exaction of poll taxes as a condition precedent to voting in Federal elections.

 Only within the past year the Supreme Court again restated the same propositions in Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S. Ct. 775, 777, 13 L. Ed. 2d 675 as follows:

 

Texas has unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot. Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 [24 S. Ct. 573, 48 L. Ed. 817]. There can be no doubt either of the historic function of the States to establish, on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in accordance with the Constitution, other qualifications for the exercise of the franchise. Indeed, "[the] States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised." Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 50 [79 S. Ct. 985, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1072]. Compare United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 [61 S. Ct. 1031, 85 L. Ed. 1368]; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 [4 S. Ct. 152, 28 L. Ed. 274]. "In other words, the privilege to vote in a state is within the jurisdiction of the state itself, to be exercised as the state may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals, in violation of the Federal Constitution." Pope v. Williams, supra, 193 U.S. at 632 [24 S. Ct. at 575].

 This case will be hereafter discussed in another connection.

 The case of Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 79 S. Ct. 985, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1072, decided in 1959, is practically on all fours with the case at bar. The State of North Carolina prescribed a literacy test for voters in the English language. A voter brought suit in the Federal court for a declaration that the requirement was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the validity of the test and the power of the State to impose it. In its opinion, which was written by Mr. Justice Douglas, the Court discussed the authority of the States vis-a-vis the power of the Congress in this field, in the following illuminating manner, p. 50, 79 S. Ct. p. 989:

 

The States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised, Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 633 [24 S. Ct. 573, 48 L. Ed. 817]; Mason v. State of Missouri, 179 U.S. 328, 335 [21 S. Ct. 125, 45 L. Ed. 214], absent of course the discrimination which the Constitution condemns. Article I, § 2 of the Constitution in its provision for the election of members of the House of Representatives and the Seventeenth Amendment in its provision for the election of Senators provide that officials will be chosen "by the People." Each provision goes on to state that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." So while the right of suffrage is established and guaranteed by the Constitution ( Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 663-665 [4 S. Ct. 152, 28 L. Ed. 274]; Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 661-662 [64 S. Ct. 757, 88 L. Ed. 987]) it is subject to the imposition of state standards which are not discriminatory and which do not contravene any restriction that Congress acting pursuant to its constitutional powers, has imposed. See United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 [61 S. Ct. 1031, 85 L. Ed. 1368]. While § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides for apportionment of Representatives among the States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State (except Indians not taxed), speaks of "the right to vote," the right protected "refers to the right to vote as established by the laws and constitution of the state." McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 39 [13 S. Ct. 3, 36 L. Ed. 869].

 There are indeed constitutional limitations on the power of the States to prescribe qualifications for voters. Each of these restrictions, however, has been imposed by an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Thus, the Fifteenth Amendment, which became effective in 1870, bars the States from denying or abridging the right of citizens of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude: -

 

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 By the Nineteenth Amendment, which took effect in 1920, the States are precluded from denying the right of suffrage to women. That Amendment reads as follows:

 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

 The latest Constitutional Amendment in this field is the Twenty-fourth Amendment, which prevents the States from imposing a poll tax as a condition for voting in Presidential and Congressional elections. That Amendment reads as follows:

 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

 Thus whenever Congress took steps to prohibit the States from imposing a particular requirement or qualification for voting, no matter of what kind, it invariably did so by initiating and proposing a Constitutional Amendment, which later was ratified by the States. So far as is known, until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress never attempted to achieve this result by legislation. It is quite evident, therefore that it was the continuous and invariable view of the Congress that it may not intrude into this field and does not have power to regulate the subject matter by legislative enactment. If Congress had the authority to take such action by legislation, the use of the laborious process of amending the Constitution would have been an exercise in futility or at least unnecessary surplusage.

 In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall. 162, 175, 22 L. Ed. 627, to which reference has already been made, Mr. Chief Justice Waite adverted and commented on this point as follows:

 

And still again, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, as follows: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The fourteenth amendment had already provided that no State shall make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race, &c.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?

 There is indeed an inherent limitation on the States implicit in the Equal Protection of the Laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The States are barred from making an unreasonable classification between various groups of citizens in determining who should have the right to vote. Thus, in Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S. Ct. 775, 13 L. Ed. 2d 675, supra, it was held that while a State may impose reasonable residence requirements for voting, it may not deny the ballot to a bona fide resident merely because he is a member of the armed forces of the United States. In other words, the State is precluded from distinguishing between residents who are civilians and residents who are members of the armed services, on the ground that such a distinction is an unreasonable classification and discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection of the Laws clause.

 This rule is inapplicable in the instant case, because in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 79 S. Ct. 985, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1072, from which we have already extensively quoted, it was held that a distinction between citizens who can read and write English and those who cannot, is not an unreasonable classification and does not violate the Equal Protection of the Laws clause. Moreover, what is involved in the case at bar is not the constitutionality of the New York State literacy test. Its validity is not assailed. What is presented here is the constitutionality of the Congressional enactment which would, in part, abrogate the law of the State. *fn4"

 A veiled intimation that the New York literacy test was intended to exclude Spanish-speaking citizens from the franchise is both irrelevant in law and untenable in fact. The requirement was originally adopted in 1921 - long before the large influx of Puerto Ricans into New York.

 At the oral hearing in this case, the argument was advanced that the statutory provision here in question may be sustained as an exercise of the power of Congress to legislate for the territories under Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2, of the Constitution, which authorizes the Congress to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." It is contended that since Section 4(e) relates to citizens of the United States who had been residents of Puerto Rico, therefore, the power of Congress to legislate for the Government of Puerto Rico embraces the authority to enact this provision. There are two answers to this contention. First, Section 4(e) is broad and comprehensive in its terms and is neither limited nor directed solely to Puerto Ricans and, therefore cannot be deemed an exercise of the power to legislate for Puerto Rico. Second, and more important, the power of Congress to legislate for a territory does not embrace authority to confer additional rights on citizens of the territory when they migrate to other parts of the United States. The Congress may not endow them with rights not possessed by other citizens of the State to which they have moved. No persuasive authority is cited in support of the contention of Government counsel on this point.

 We have given due consideration to the presumption of validity which attaches to every Act of Congress. That presumption, however, is completely overcome and destroyed by the inescapable conclusion that we have reached from the foregoing discussion to the effect that Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, transgresses the powers granted to Congress and, therefore, is repugnant to the Constitution and invalid.

 Much of the oral argument and of the written material submitted in behalf of the Government, is intended to demonstrate what is claimed to be the unfairness of excluding from the right to vote in New York, those Puerto Ricans who can read and write Spanish, but are not literate in English. No matter how weighty and cogent such an argument may be, and we express no opinion on this subject, it should be addressed to the Legislature of New York State, rather than to the courts. It is hardly necessary to say that expediency, desirability, and policy of legislation are not the concern of the judiciary. We pass alone on the power to enact the legislation. If any remedy is necessary or desirable, an amendment to the Constitution of the State of New York, possibly implemented by legislation, would seem to be the appropriate recourse and not Congressional legislation.

 We conclude that Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment are denied. Counsel may submit an appropriate order.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.