Oregon v. Mitchell

Oregon v. Mitchell
Oregon v. Mitchell
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 20, 1970; Decided December 21, 1970
Full case name	Oregon v. Mitchell, Attorney General
Citations	400 U.S. 112 ( more ) 91 S. Ct. 260; 27 L. Ed. 2d 272; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 1
Holding
	1. Lowering the voting age to 18 years in federal elections under Section 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 is constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause;; 2. Lowering the voting age to 18 years under Section 302 of the 1970 VRA Amendments in state and local elections is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment;; 3. Section 201 of the 1970 VRA Amendments banning the use of literacy tests as a voter qualification in federal, state, and local elections is constitutional under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment;; 4. Section 202 of the 1970 VRA Amendments creating a minimum residency duration requirement for voter registration and a uniform rule for absentee voting in presidential elections is constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
Court membership
	Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas ; John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr. ; Potter Stewart · Byron White ; Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Case opinions
Plurality	Part 1: Brennan, White, and Marshall;; Part 2: Stewart, Burger, and Blackmun;; Part 3: Brennan, White, and Marshall; Stewart, Burger, and Blackmun;; Part 4: Brennan, White, and Marshall
Concurrence	Part 1: Douglas; Black (in judgment);; Part 2: Black; Harlan;; Part 3: Harlan; Douglas (in judgment); Black (in judgment);; Part 4: Douglas; Stewart, Burger, and Blackmun (in judgment); Black (in judgment)
Dissent	Part 1: Stewart, Burger, and Blackmun; Harlan;; Part 2: Brennan, White, and Marshall; Douglas;; Part 4: Harlan
Laws applied
	10th Amendment, Enforcement Clauses of the 14th and 15th Amendments
	Superseded by
	26th Amendment (Parts 1 and 2)

Last updated September 22, 2023

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General.^[1] The Supreme Court ruled that the literacy test ban under Section 201, the minimum residency duration requirement for voter registration and the uniform rule for absentee voting in presidential elections under Section 202, and that Congress lowering the voting age in federal elections from 21 to 18 under Section 302 were all constitutional, but that Congress lowering the voting age in state and local elections from 21 to 18 under Section 302 was unconstitutional.^[1]

Holdings

Section 201

Despite the Court upholding Section 201 unanimously, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and Harry Blackmun in a single opinion,^[2] William J. Brennan, Byron White, and Thurgood Marshall in a separate single opinion,^[3] and John Marshall Harlan II in a separate opinion argued the literacy test ban was constitutional under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment.^[4] In separate opinions, William O. Douglas argued that it was constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause,^[5] while Hugo Black argued that it was constitutional under both Section 2 of the 15th Amendment and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause.^[6]^[7]

Section 202

The Court upheld Section 202 by an 8–1 ruling with Douglas and Brennan, White, and Marshall arguing the minimum residency duration requirement for voter registration and the uniform rule for absentee voting in presidential elections was constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Privileges or Immunities Clause.^[8]^[9] Stewart, Burger, and Blackmun also argued Section 202 was constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Privileges or Immunities Clause but more broadly under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section VIII to protect constitutional provisions related to freedom of movement in general and under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section II specifically.^[10] Black argued Section 202 was constitutional under the Congressional Elections Clause of Article I, Section IV and the Necessary and Proper Clause.^[6]^[11] Harlan dissented and argued Section 202 was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment by the delegation of powers under the Presidential Electors Clause and the Electoral College Meetings Clause of Article II, Section I.^[12]

Section 302

The Court upheld Section 302 lowering the voting age in federal elections by a 5–4 ruling with Douglas and Brennan, White, and Marshall arguing it was constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause,^[13]^[14] and Black arguing it was constitutional under the Congressional Elections Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.^[15]^[16] Harlan and Stewart, Burger, and Blackmun dissented and argued that Section 302 as applied to federal elections was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment by the delegation of powers under the House Electors Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section II, the Congressional Elections Clause, the 17th Amendment, and the Presidential Electors Clause and the Electoral College Meetings Clause of Article II, Section I.^[12]^[17] In a separate 5–4 ruling where Black joined Harlan and Stewart, Burger, and Blackmun to form the majority, the Court held that Section 302 lowering the voting age in state and local elections was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment by the delegation of powers under the House Electors Qualifications Clause and the 17th Amendment,^[6]^[18]^[12]^[17] while Douglas and Brennan, White, and Marshall argued it was also constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause.^[13]^[14]

26th Amendment

Less than seven months after Oregon v. Mitchell was decided, the Court's Section 302 holdings with respect to minimum age requirements as voter qualifications were superseded by the ratification of the 26th Amendment.^[19]

Subsequent cases

In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the Court concluded that the Section 302 holding that permitted Congress to preempt state voter qualifications for minimum voting age in federal elections under the Equal Protection Clause was of minimal precedential value to that decision.^[20]

Related Research Articles

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House of Representatives on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36 states on December 6, 1865, and proclaimed on December 18. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted following the American Civil War.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

The Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide prohibition on alcohol. The Twenty-first Amendment was proposed by the 72nd Congress on February 20, 1933, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a prior amendment, as well as being the only amendment to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from using age as a reason for denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States who are at least eighteen years old. It was proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971, and three-fourths of the states ratified it by July 1, 1971.

A Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI. The variations in the pertinent language are as follows: The Thirteenth Amendment leaves out the word "the", the Fourteenth Amendment states "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." In addition to the amendments above, the Eighteenth Amendment states "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first United States federal law to define citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected by the law. It was mainly intended, in the wake of the American Civil War, to protect the civil rights of persons of African descent born in or brought to the United States.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, eleven southern states established poll taxes as part of their disenfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections; five states continued to require poll taxes for voters in state elections. By this ruling, the Supreme Court banned the use of poll taxes in state elections.

Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to enact laws that enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution.

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a “majority-minority” Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of [congressional] power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Oregon Ballot Measure 54 (2008) or House Joint Resolution is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that removed provisions relating to qualifications of electors for school district elections. The measure is a technical fix designed to remove inoperative provisions in the Oregon Constitution which barred those under 21 from voting in school board elections and required voters to be able to pass a literacy test to vote in school district elections. This measure appeared on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot in Oregon. It was passed by voters, receiving 72.59% of the vote.

Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that to deny people living in federal enclaves the right to vote is a violation of their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972), was a court case in the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law that allowed less-than unanimous jury verdicts to convict persons charged with a felony, does not violate the Due Process clause. This case was argued on a similar basis as Apodaca v. Oregon.

There is ongoing legal debate about the constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in the United States. At issue are interpretations of the Compact Clause of Article I, Section X, and states' plenary power under the Presidential Electors Clause of Article II, Section I.

References

1 2 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 112 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 282–284 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 231–236 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 216–217 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 144–147 (1970)
1 2 3 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 118 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 131–134 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 147–150 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 236–239 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 285–292 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 134 (1970)
1 2 3 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 154–213 (1970)
1 2 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 135–144 (1970)
1 2 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 239–281 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 117 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 119–124 (1970)
1 2 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 293–296 (1970)
↑ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 124–131 (1970)
↑ "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 26, 2013" (PDF). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2013. pp. 44, 2273. Retrieved April 13, 2014.
↑ Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. , 570 U.S. 1, 13–15 (2013)

External links

Works related to Oregon v. Mitchell at Wikisource
Text of Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112(1970) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Oregon_v._Mitchell_p._112-1] 1 2 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 112 (1970)

[2] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 282–284 (1970)

[3] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 231–236 (1970)

[4] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 216–217 (1970)

[5] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 144–147 (1970)

[Oregon_v._Mitchell_p._118-6] 1 2 3 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 118 (1970)

[7] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 131–134 (1970)

[8] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 147–150 (1970)

[9] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 236–239 (1970)

[10] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 285–292 (1970)

[11] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 134 (1970)

[Oregon_v._Mitchell_pp._154–213-12] 1 2 3 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 154–213 (1970)

[Oregon_v._Mitchell_pp._135–144-13] 1 2 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 135–144 (1970)

[Oregon_v._Mitchell_pp._239–281-14] 1 2 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 239–281 (1970)

[15] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 117 (1970)

[16] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 119–124 (1970)

[Oregon_v._Mitchell_pp._293–296-17] 1 2 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 293–296 (1970)

[18] Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 124–131 (1970)

[CUSA-19] "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 26, 2013" (PDF). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2013. pp. 44, 2273. Retrieved April 13, 2014.

[20] Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. , 570 U.S. 1, 13–15 (2013)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

v t e United States 10th Amendment case law
Forced participation or commandeering	Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh (1907) Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) Missouri v. Holland (1920) United States v. Butler (1936) Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936) Helvering v. Davis (1937) Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) South Dakota v. Dole (1987) New York v. United States (1992) Printz v. United States (1997) Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (1st Cir. 2012) Bond v. United States 2011 2014 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) Haaland v. Brackeen (2023)
Commerce clause	Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Smith v. Turner and Norris v. Boston (1849) Paul v. Virginia (1869) Kidd v. Pearson (1888) In re Debs (1895) Champion v. Ames (1903) Southern Railway Co. v. United States (1911) Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States (1914) Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen (1923) Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936) NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. (1940) United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) Wickard v. Filburn (1942) United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (1944) North American Co. v. SEC (1946) H.P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond (1949) Boynton v. Virginia (1960) Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977) Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, Inc. (1981) Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana (1981) Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) South Carolina v. Baker (1988) Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. (1989) United States v. Lopez (1995) United States v. Rybar (1996) Reno v. Condon (2000) United States v. Locke (2000) United States v. Morrison (2000) SWANCC v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) United States v. Stewart (2003) Gonzalez v. Raich (2005, previously Ashcroft v. Raich) NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) Taylor v. United States (2016)
Others	Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)