| Oregon v. Mitchell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 20, 1970 Decided December 21, 1970 | |
| Full case name | Oregon v. Mitchell, Attorney General |
| Citations | 400U.S.112 (more) 91 S. Ct. 260; 27L. Ed. 2d 272; 1970U.S. LEXIS 1 |
| Holding | |
| 1. Lowering thevoting age to 18 years in federal elections under Section 302 of theVoting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 is constitutional underSection 5 of the 14th Amendment toenforce theEqual 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 the10th Amendment; 3. Section 201 of the 1970 VRA Amendments banning the use ofliteracy tests as a voter qualification in federal, state, and local elections is constitutional underSection 2 of the 15th Amendment; 4. Section 202 of the 1970 VRA Amendments creating a minimum residency duration requirement forvoter registration and a uniform rule forabsentee voting inpresidential elections is constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce thePrivileges or Immunities Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| 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Superseded by | |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) | |
Oregon v. Mitchell,400 U.S.112 (1970), was aU.S. Supreme Court case in which the states ofOregon,Texas,Arizona, andIdaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of theVoting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the91st United States Congress, and whereJohn Mitchell was the respondent in his role asUnited States Attorney General.[1] The Supreme Court ruled that theliteracy test ban under Section 201, the minimum residency duration requirement forvoter registration and the uniform rule forabsentee voting inpresidential elections under Section 202, and that Congress lowering thevoting 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]
Despite the Court upholding Section 201 unanimously,Potter Stewart,Warren Burger, andHarry Blackmun in a single opinion,[2]William J. Brennan,Byron White, andThurgood Marshall in a separate single opinion,[3] andJohn Marshall Harlan II in a separate opinion argued the literacy test ban was constitutional underSection 2 of the 15th Amendment.[4] In separate opinions,William O. Douglas argued that it was constitutional underSection 5 of the 14th Amendment toenforce theEqual Protection Clause,[5] whileHugo 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]
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 thePrivileges 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 theNecessary and Proper Clause ofArticle I, Section VIII to protect constitutional provisions related tofreedom of movement in general and under thePrivileges and Immunities Clause ofArticle IV, Section II specifically.[10] Black argued Section 202 was constitutional under theCongressional Elections Clause of Article I, Section IV and the Necessary and Proper Clause.[6][11] Harlan dissented and argued Section 202 was unconstitutional under the10th Amendment by thedelegation of powers under thePresidential Electors Clause and theElectoral College Meetings Clause of Article II, Section I.[12]
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 theHouse Electors Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section II, the Congressional Elections Clause, the17th 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]
Less than seven months afterOregon 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 the26th Amendment.[19]
InArizona 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]
Works related toOregon v. Mitchell at Wikisource