Earl Warren

“ However, no statutory provision is made for assistance to those who wish to write in a name, but who are unable to do so because of illiteracy. When Virginia was brought under the coverage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Virginia election offficials apparently thought that the provision in § 24-252, requiring a voter to cast a write-in vote in the voter's own handwriting was incompatible with the provisions of § 4 (a) of the Act suspending the enforcement of any test or device as a prerequisite to voting. ”

“ Notwithstanding the problems for judicial administration, Congress has determined that three-judge courts are desirable in a number of circumstances involving confrontations between state and federal power or in circumstances involving a potential for substantial interference with government administration. [26] The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is an example. Federal supervision over the enforcement of state legislation always poses difficult problems for our federal system. ”

“ The weight of the legislative history and an analysis of the basic purposes of the Act indicate that the enactment in each of these cases constitutes a 'voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting' within the meaning of § 5.
No. 25 involves a change from district to at-large voting for county supervisors. The right to vote can be affected by a dilution of voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot. ”

“ Appellees in No. 25 also argue that § 5 was not intended to apply to a change from district to at-large voting, because application of § 5 would cause a conflict in the administration of reapportionment legislation. They contend that under such a broad reading of § 5, enforcement of a reapportionment plan could be enjoined for failure to meet the § 5 approval requirements, even though the plan had been approved by a federal court. [28] Appellees urge that Congress could not have intended to force the States to submit a reapportionment plan to two different courts. ”

“ In the 1966 elections, appellants attempted to vote for a write-in candidate by sticking labels, printed with the name of their candidate, on the ballot. The election officials refused to count appellants' ballots, claiming that the Virginia election law did not authorize marking ballots with labels. As the election outcome would not have been changed had the disputed ballots been counted, appellants sought only prospective relief. In the District Court, appe lants did not assert that § 5 precluded enforcement of the procedure prescribed by the bulletin. ”

“ If the majority of those voting vote that all the qualified electors shall be eligible to vote for candidates in each district, then thereafter all elections for members of boards of supervisors shall so be held. If not, members of the boards of supervisors shall continue to be elected by the electorate of their respective districts and the board of supervisors shall not be permitted to adopt this alternative method of electing members of boards of supervisors again until two (2) years have transpired. ”

“ The judge of election shall assist the voter, upon his request, in the preparation of his ballot in accordance with the voter's instructions, and shall not in any manner divulge or indicate, by signs or otherwise, the name or names of the person or persons for whom any voter shall vote. ”

“ Voters who are members of a racial minority might well be in the majority in one district, but in a decided minority in the county as a whole. This type of change could therefore nullify their ability to elect the candidate of their choice just as would prohibiting some of them from voting.
In No. 26 an important county officer in certain counties was made appointive instead of elective. The power of a citizen's vote is affected by this amendment; after the change, he is prohibited from electing an officer formerly subject to the approval of the voters. ”

“ We have previously held that a federal statute passed to protect a class of citizens, although not specifically authorizing members of the protected class to institute suit, nevertheless implied a private right of action. ”

“ Appellees in the Mississippi cases maintain that § 5 covers only those state enactments which prescribe who may register to vote. While accepting that the Act is broad enough to insure that the votes of all citizens should be cast, appellees urge that § 5 does not cover state rules relating to the qualification of candidates or to state decisions as to which offices shall be elective. ”

“ Where all the facts are undisputed, this Court may, in the interests of judicial economy, determine the applicability of the provisions of that Act, even though some specific sections were not argued below. ”

“ The bulletin was an attempt to modify the provisions of § 24-252 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 which provides, inter alia, that 'any voter (may) place on the official ballot the name of any person in his own handwriting * * *.' [13] The Virginia Code (§ 24 251) further provides that voters with a physical incapacity may be assisted in preparing their ballots. For example, one who is blind may be aided in the preparation of his ballot by a person of his choice. Those unable to mark their ballots due to any other physical disability may be assisted by one of the election judges. ”

“ The guarantee of § 5 that no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with an unapproved new enactment subject to § 5, might well prove an empty promise unless the private citizen were allowed to seek judicial enforcement of the prohibition. ”

“ If a majority of such qualified electors who vote in such election shall vote in favor of the appointment of the county superintendent of education by the county board of education then, at the expiration of the term of the county superintendent of education then in office, the county superintendent of education of said county shall not be elected but shall thereafter be appointed by the county board of education for a term of not more than four (4) years ”

“ United States Commission on Civil Rights, Political Participation 164-165 (1968) .↑ It is significant that the United States has urged that private litigants have standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in these suits. Memorandum of the United States as Amicus Curiae 8, n. 7.↑ 79 Stat. 444, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973j (d) , (f) (1964 ed., Supp. I) .↑ This jurisdictional question does not apply to No. 3, however. In No. 3, the three-judge court also considered and ruled on appellants' claims that the Virginia statute and regulations were in conflict with the Constitution. ”