Citation network
Allen Vs. State Bd. of Elections
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 03, 1969
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Allen v. StateSearch
-
Bd. of Elections - 393 U.S. 544 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. StateSearch
-
Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) Allen v. StateSearch
-
Page 393 U. S. 548 In South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
of the Act. We gave detailed treatment to the history and purposes of the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
unless the State first complies with one of the section's approval procedures. No. 25 Fairley v. PattersonSearch
-
No. 26, Bunton v. PattersonSearch
-
approval requirements. No. 36, Whitley v. WilliamsSearch
-
cases and postponed consideration of jurisdiction to a hearing on the merits. 392 U.S. 902 (1968). No. 3, Allen v. StateSearch
-
Act was drafted to make the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment finally a reality for all citizens. South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
members of the protected class to institute suit, nevertheless implied a private right of action. In J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the Voting Rights Act, and would involve an attack on the constitutionality of the Act itself. See Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
at prohibiting the enforcement of a state enactment that is for some reason violative of the Act. Cf. United States v. WardSearch
-
Perez v. RhiddlehooverSearch
-
questions. See Perez v. RhiddlehooverSearch
-
supra, at 72. Moreover as we indicated in South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
from the three-judge court only if the three-judge court was properly convened. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
We held in Swift Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
that congressional enactments providing for the convening of three-judge courts must be strictly construed. Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
federal court system, and may often result in a delay in a matter needing swift initial adjudication. See Swift Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
been unaware of the legitimate reasons that prompted Congress to enact three-judge court legislation. See Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
c)(1) (1969 ed., Supp. I). See Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
can be affected by a dilution of voting power, as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot. See Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
we also emphasize that our decision indicates no opinion concerning their constitutionality. v. AppelleesSearch
-
Together with No. 25, Fairley et al. v. PattersonSearch
-
Attorney General of Mississippi, et al., No. 26, Bunton et al. v. PattersonSearch
-
Attorney General of Mississippi, et al., and No. 36, Whitley et al. v. WilliamsSearch
-
on the merits, a three-judge District Court ordered appellants placed on the 1966 general election ballot. Whitley v. JohnsonSearch
-
See Boynton v. VirginiaSearch
-
Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
Silver v. UnitedSearch
-
rights. See United States v. RainesSearch
-
a declaratory judgment that its new voting laws do not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. Cf. Apache County v. UnitedSearch
-
just these suits for securing the right to vote that prompted Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
power by adopting a system in which various legislative bodies are elected on an at-large basis. And yet, in Fairley v. PattersonSearch
-
was clearly concerned with changes in procedure with which voters could comply. But a law, like that in Fairley v. PattersonSearch
-
Act's basic purposes, the Court suggests that Congress intended to adopt the concept of voting articulated in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
on the Fifteenth Amendment, the leading voting case is not Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
but Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
the gerrymander to contain the impact of Negro suffrage. It is unnecessary, of course, to decide whether Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
cases' expansive concept of voting when it enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Once it is determined that Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
concluding that the Voting Rights Act did not apply. Rather, it seems to me that only the judgment in Fairley v. PattersonSearch
-
which simply gives each county the right to elect its Board of Supervisors on an at-large basis. In Whitley v. WilliamsSearch
-
perceive no good reason why it should not be included within the ambit of the Act. The statute involved in Bunton v. PattersonSearch
-
Cf. Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
The state senator, state representative, county supervisor justice of the peace, and constable involved in Whitley v. WilliamsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial