South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Presentation

South Carolina V. Katzenback

Introduction

• South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)
• US Supreme Court Decision
• State of South Carolina
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Attorney General of the United States

1 Historical Context

2 Proceedings

3. Arguments of decision

plan

4 Impact on the Short Term

5 Impact on the Long Term

6 Conclusion

Historical context

The Civil Rights Movement

Civil Rights movement

1950s and 1960s

• Abolished slavery
• Discrimination continued

CIVIL War

• 1868
• Equal protection under the law

14th admendment

• 1870
• Right to vote for Black Americans

15th admendment

The South

The Jim Crow laws

The South

Black People could not vote

Voter Literacy Tests

The South

Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal"

The North

The struggle

• Finding job

• Getting an education

• Buying a house

• Discouraged
• Worst jobs

World WAR II

• Threat to march
• Executive Order 8802 on June 25, 1941

World WAR II

• Harry Truman
• Executive Order 9981 on 1941

Cold War

• Beginning of a two decades last fight

Mid-20th

Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks

• On December 1, 1955 : Arrested in Montgomery, Alabama
• Separated seats
• "Mother of the modern-day civil rights movement"
• Montgomery Improvement Association
• On November 14, 1956 : segregated seating unconstitutional

Brown v. Board of Education

• 1954
• Segragation in public schools illegal

The Little Rock Nine

The Little Rock Nine

• On september 3, 1957
• Central High School, Little Rock, Arkansas
• Ordered federal troops

Civil Rights Act of 1957

• On September 9, 1957
• President Eisenhower

Greensboro sit-ins

The March on Washington

The March on Washington

On February 1, 1960

• A. Phillip Randolph
• Bayard Rustin
• Martin Luther King Jr.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Civil Rights Act of 1965

Proceedings

Proceedings

Issue : constitutionality of the 1965 Voting Rights Act

States joined as amicus curiae

Article 3 of the Constitution

Supported South California

State as a party to the case : original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia

Judging the case in accordance with the historical importance it reflects

Supported Attorney

California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

+ Info

Arguments

The Majority opinion

• Chief Justice Warren
• William O. Douglas
• Tom C. Clark
• John M. Harlan
• William J. Brennan
• Potter Stewart
• Byron White
• Abe Fortas

• Justice Hugo Black

Majority opinion

Justice Hugo black

Supported the decisions regarding the 15th Amendment

The Voting Rights act of 1965 : intention to rid the country of racial discrimination in voting

The constitutionality of the sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13 of the Voting Rights act of 1965

Supportede the suspension of literacy tests and the appointment of Examiners

"Has Congress exercised its powers under the 15th Amendment in an appropriate manner with relation to the States ?"

Dissenting opinion on the section 5 of the Voting rights act

Short Term Impact

Allowed

• 1964-1967 : 800 000 African Americans register to vote
• the Fair Housing Act on April 11, 1968

Long TERM Impact

The crumbling legacy

• 2009, Northwest Austin v. Holder : SC refused to rule on the constitutionality of section 5 VRA
• 2013, Shelby County v. Holder : stroke down section 4 b of the VRA
• 2015 and 2017, two act called the Voting Rights Advancement Act introduced in congress
• 2019, John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was voted in the House of representatives but has since been blocked by the senate

Conclusion

TEXAS GOP

Launching avalanche of bills to curtail voting

Sources

• FITZGERALD, Mario. A New Voting Rights Act for a new Century. Brooklyn Law Review. Fall 2018, vol 84, article 22.
• FUENTES-ROHWER, Luis. Understanding the paradoxical Case of the Voting Rights Act. Florida State University Law Review. Summer 2009, vol.36, n°4
• KATZ, Ellen. South Carolina’s “Evolutionary Process”. University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. 2013, vol 113, pages 55-65.
• South Carolina v. Katzenbach, attorney general. 383 US 301.
• https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement

thanks!