*1 v. POWER CARDONA еt al. April 1966. June Argued 1966. Decided
No. O’Dwyer argued the for With Paul appellant. cause Bernard W. Richland. him on the brief Hirshowitz, A. Samuel Attorney First Assistant Gen- York, argued the for appеllees. eral of New cause With were Louis J. Lejkowitz, Attorney him brief Gen- George Mantzoros, Soloff, C. Barry J. Brenda eral, Lipson Amy Juviler, Attorneys Assistant General. curiae, amici
Briefs urging reversal, by were filed Leo B. Joseph Robison American Pfeffer Norman Fink Congress, Jewish for Nathan Straus. opinion delivered the Brennan Justice
Mr. *2 Court. Morgan, argued with Katzenbach was
This case the sustained today. We there ante, decided p. 641, also Voting Rights Act of of 4 the constitutionality § Supremacy of the Clause that, by force 1965, and held Eng- York’s the State New provided (e), as per- against cannot be enforced literacy requirement lish completed grade a sixth educa- successfully sons who had a school accredited public in, private in a school tion lan- the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico by, guage English. was than In instruction other case, which York adjudicated by the New courts unsuccеssfully (e), appellant before the enactment of 4§ sought a judicial determination that New English literacy requirement, as her applied deny to vote all elections, violated the Federal Constitution.
Appellant was born and educated in the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico and has York City lived in New since about 1948. July 23, On attempted shе register to vote, presenting evidence States citi- of United zenship, her age and residence; represented and she that although she was able to read Sрanish, and write she satisfy could not English York’s literacy require- ment. The New York City Board of Elections refused register her as a solely voter ground that she was not literate in English. Appellant then brought this proceeding in state against court the Board of Elections its members. alleged She that Eng- lish literacy requirement applied as was invalid under the Federal Constitution sought an order directing Board to register her as a duly qualified or, voter, the alternative, directing the Board to administer a literacy test in the Spanish lаnguage, and, if she passed the test, to register her aas duly qualified voter. The prayed relief denied the trial court affirmed. dissenting, three judges Appeals, York Court amеnded, remittitur E. 2d 639, 209 N. N. Y. 2d 2d 458. E. 556, 210 2d N. 209 N. E. 708, 827, 16 N. Y. 2d U. S. jurisdiction. probable We noted at alleges that she complaint appellant’s Although alleged therein is not Rico, it in Puerto tended school way in any other clearly informed we been nor have successfully com she (e), § 4 required whether, private aor in, grade sixth pleted the If she had the Commonwealth.* by, school аccredited her failure to school, grade such completed the sixth would requirement satisfy the New York *3 of our light in de longer registration no bar to her might case today Morgan. in This cision Katzenbach any relief appellant would not need moot; therefore be accomplished sought. 4 the (e) if in terms result she § Express Co., Southern Cf., g., e. Dinsmore v. U. if not Moreover, spe even were 115, 119-120. in (e), the courts should cifically by § covered whether, light in of this fed first instance determine the the York enactment, applications Eng eral those of New literacy requirement lish in prohibited by not terms (e) continuing validity. § 4 have We therefore vacate costs judgment, party without to either in this Court, and remand the cause to the Court of of Appeals proceedings for such may further as it deem appropriate. {s u so ordered of
[For dissenting opinion Harlan, Mr. Justice see ante, p. 659.]
*Presumably predominant language classroom of the she attended was English, other than and thus that element 4§ is predominant satisfied. If the classroom Eng had been lish, and successfully if she had completed grade, the sixth then she would be entitled under vote the New York Election Law. See n. in Morgan, Katzenbach v. ante. Fortas Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice
Mr. Justice dissenting. concurs, literate Spanish ancestry, is American of
Appellant
Spanish language
but
illiterate
voting
York’s
barred from
hence
statute.
prerequisite
is a
for exercise
I doubt that
wise
intelligence
not
Literacy and
are
of the franchise.
experience
nations1
India,
The
like
synonymous.
respon-
illiterate
have returned
office
persons
where
emphasizes
governments
again,
over and
that
sible
ability
necessary
is
an intelli-
to read and write
not
problem
use of
gent
judges
the ballot. Yet our
is
is
to determine what
or unwise. The issues
wise
of constitutional
are
power
more confined. A State has
powers
broad
elections;
say
over
and I
cannot
that
it
an unconstitutional
power
exercise of that
to condition
ability
use
ballot
to read
write.
only
That
is the
teaching of
Northampton
Lassiter v.
Board,
Election
1 quarter century Puerto Rico in the last provided has also a point, demonstration of although overcoming it is fast its illit рroblem. eracy people In 1940 of its were illiterate. The 31.5% rate was reduced to in 1965. Selected Indices of Social and 13.8% Progress: Economic 1939-40, Fiscal Years 1947-48 to 1964-65 (Puerto Rico Analysis) Bureau of Economic and Social 7-8. Dur ing period people highly progressive have elected and able officials.
676 Spanish- where there are flourish and periodicals
and and reаds which language radio broadcasts City taking in New up residence to. Before listens in regularly voted where she Puerto Rico she lived And municipal elections. legislative, gubernatorial, intelligent is whether protection question equal so our much where presumed not be of the ballot use should is where as it Spanish one is versatile English is the medium. to English-speaking law an voter permits
New York’s literacy by passing English test2 or qualify either showing completion of the sixth a certificate presenting elementary English schоol approved of an grade Spanish-speaking But a language of instruction.3 is the is offered no test appellant, such as person, showing a only recourse certificate Spanish. Her in, grade completion of sixth by, school accredited Commonwealth private Voting Rights prior Rico; Puerto which one in Act that schоol had be The which New language of instruction. heavier burden can- placed Spanish-speaking on the American York has Equal under the Protection my view sustained thе Fourteenth Amendment. Clause with the to vote which over We deal here in a free again we “fundamental matter have called society.” Reynolds Sims, 377 S. and democratic v. U. Virginia Board, v. 533, 561-562; Harper U. might restrain” classifications “invade or 667. Where they “closely rights liberties, must be fundamental Virginia carefully Harper confined.” scrutinized and Board, рhilosophy at 670. Our that removal of supra, McKinney’s 168(1), Laws Section Consolidated Ann., Law. Election 3Id., (2). §168 4 Ibid. *5 ballot, courts, must left
unwise laws be not be restricted as that recourse to ballot requires attempted. profits Spanish- It little New York has York that can speaking people literacy test Albany either in or in changed by legislation Wash- D. from ington, C., they particiрating if are barred in the process legislatures. selecting those That is funda- mental reason a far sterner why required test is when a abridges law—whether state fundamental fеderal — right.5 I York, registers have said, those have who
completed six years school in a Eng- classroom where lish is the medium of instruction and who pass those In my test. is no view, there rational considering the importance right of the at stake— basis— for denying equivalent those with qualifications except Spanish. that the Thus has, quite apart any from federal legislation, a constitutional parity vote in New York on a with an English-speak- ing passing citizen —either Spanish literacy test or through a showing certificate сompletion of the sixth grade in a Puerto Rican school where Spanish was the language. classroom In no way other can she be placed on a constitutional parity with English-speaking electors. 5See Thornhill v. Alabama, 95-96; U. S. Thomas v. 530; Collins, 323 U. S. Ashton Kentucky, ante, p.