MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, while joining the opinion of the Court, adheres to the dissents in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, and South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT

CHART SHOWING TUSKEGEE, ALABAMA, BEFORE AND AFTER ACT 140

(The entire area of the square comprised the City prior to Act 140. The irregular black-bordered figure within the square represents the post-enactment city.)

Case title

EXHIBIT 9

CASES FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO ENFORCE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

Date filed

Court

Issue(s)

United States v Democratic Committee of Dallas May 5, 1966 Southern District of Alabama.
County et al.

United States v. Executive Committee of Demo- June 27, 1966 District of South Carolina.
cratic Party of Clarendon County, et al.

United States v. Post (No. 1) (Madison Parish).. Jan. 9, 1967 Western District of Louisiana..

United States v. Post (No. 2) (Madison Parish).. Feb. 23, 1968

do.

Literacy tests.

English language literacy test a prerequisite to
voting.

Use of voter application forms as literacy test or
device; failure to list persons registered by
Federal examiners; failure to assist illiterates.
Failure to recognize Federal voter lists and
certificates.

Whether county commissioners' terms could be
extended, when they had been elected during
period of black disenfranchisement
Whether executive committee could exclude bal-
lots from unattended ballot boxes in deter-
mining election results
Whether Federal observers could witness as-
sistence given to illiterate voters, and whether
42 U.S.C. 1973 (f) was constitutional.
Refusal to allow Federal observers to witness
assistance to illiterate voters.

Refusal to allow Federal observers; refusal to
place person's names on registration books;
and assignment of voters to new precincts on
the basis of race.

Certain white voters allowed to vote absentee.
Same opportunity not afforded to black voters.
Election officials instituted new voting procedure
during special election.

Status (and citation)

Apr. 7, 1966. Relief granted. Poil tax held un constitutional.

Apr. 1, 1966. Relief granted. Poll tax held un-
constitutional.

Mar. 3, 1966. Relief granted. Poll tax held un-
constitutional. 257 F. Supp. 95 (M.D. Ala. 1966).
Feb. 9, 1966. Relief granted. Poll tax held un-
constitutional. June 2, 1966 Sup. Ct. affirmed.
252 F. Supp. 234 (W.D. Tex. 1966), aff'd 384
U.S. 155 (1966).

Oct. 21, 1965. Appellate Ct. granted relief. All
tests suspended. 352 F.2d 329 (5th Cir. 1965).
Dec. 8, 1965. Relief granted. 248 F. Supp. 316
(W.D. N.Y. 1965), appeal dismissed 383 U.S.
575 (1966).

Aug. 10, 1966. Relief granted on all issues. 265 F.
Supp 703 (F.D. La. 1966).

May 2, 1966. Relief granted. 256 F. Supp. 344
(S.D. Miss. 1966).

Apr. 15, 1966. Reiief granted. Extension not al-
lowed-violation of 15th amendment. 253 F.
Supp. 915 (M.D. Ala. 1966).

May 24, 1966. Relief granted. Refusal to tabulate
unattended ballots not allowed 254 F. Supp.
537 (S D. Ala. 1966).

May 27, 1966. Retef granted Observers may
witness and VRA subsec. (1) is constitutional.

May 27, 1966. Relief granted. Federal observers
ordered present.

Relief granted by interlocutory order. Dec. 4,
1968. Action dismissed.

Jan. 4, 1968. Special clection ordered. 279 F.
Supp. 60 (W.D. La. 1968).

New election ordered. (No adequate notice to
black voters). 297 F. Supp. 46 (W.D. La. 1969).
Mar. 10, 1969.

EXHIBIT 9-Continued

CASES FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO ENFORCE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT-Continued

18-yr-old vote and residency requirements for Dec. 21, 1970. 18-yr-old vote not valid for state Presidential elections questioned.

United States v. St. Mary Parish School Board, Aug. 15, 1972 Western District of Louisiana.. et al.

Steward and United States v. Waller, et al.

Aug. 21, 1972 Northern District of Georgia.

Unites States v. Board of Supervisors of Warren Oct. 31, 1973 Southern District of Mississippi...
County, et al.

United States v. Meriwether County, Ga., et al. United States v. Lancaster County Election Commission, et al.

Aug. 9, 1974
9, 1974
Oct.
Nov. 1, 1974
...do.

Northern District of Georgia.
District of South Carolina.
Southern District of Alabama.
Southern District of Mississippi.
Feb. 18, 1963 5th circuit..

Issue(s)

Whether reapportionment plan comes within sec.
5 ambit and whether certain administrative
regulations, promulgated by Attorney. General
Implementation of redistricting and reappor-
under sec. 5 are valid.
tionment plan objected to by Justice Depart-
ment.

Implementation of sec. 5 changes objected to by
Justice Department (majority vote and
Change to at-large system and implementation
designated post requirement).
of sec. 5 objection.

Different registration procedure for blacks and
whites. Whether change of election districts
Whether court-ordered reapportionment plan
was a change under sec. 5.
which did not consider 15th amendment is-
sues should be submitted for review under
sec. 5. Whether 3-judge court should be
convened.

Whether statute requiring at-large voting for
Mayor-Alderman governments violates 15th
amendment.

Status (and citation)

Apr. 19, 1972. Reapportionment plan covered by
sec. 5, and sec. 5 is constitutional as applied.
351 F. Supp. 444 (N.D. Ga. 1972). Supreme
Court affirmed. 411 U.S. 526 (1973).

Oct. 10, 1972. Suit dismissed on U.S. motion.
(Similar matters had been considered pre-
viously by court in Beverly v. St. Mary Parish
School Board.)

Oct. 27, 1972. 3-judge court required new
election.

Jan. 31, 1973. 3-judge court held new law invalid
and ordered future elections to be conducted
under old law. (Election invalid).
June 12, 1974. Consent decree reassigning mis-
assigned voters and creating election districts.

Oct. 25, 1973. District court ruled no 3-judge
court required. Case dismissed. Oct. 29,
1974. Appeal dismissed. (Plan redrawn, making
appeal moot.)

Under advisement.

Redistricting plan implemented' despite sec. 5 Case pending.
objection. Question of whether federal ob-
Sec. 5. Unreviewed change from district to at-
jection was timely.
large election.

Sec. 5. No Federal review of new statutes......

Refusal to include black party candidates on the ballot.

Sec. 5. No Federal review of new election system (change to at-large system).

Use of literacy tests and devices.

United States v. Dallas County, et al.

United States v. Kemper County, Miss., et al.
United States v. Clements; United States v.
Crawford (Webster and Red River Parishes,
La.).1

Palmer and United States v. Harvey (West Mar. 26, 1964
Feliciana Parish, La.).

1 Was not originally filed under the Voting Rights Act but resulted in appellate court decisions which applied the act.

Refusal to register any person.

Special election ordered Sept. 30, 1974.
New elections ordered. Oct. 10, 1974.

Temporary restraining order Nov. 1, 1974. Case
pending

Relief granted Nov. 21, 1974 (new election accord-
ing to old system).

Mar. 14, 1966. Decision reversing preact district
court decision and suspending use of all tests
or devices. 358 F. 2d 89 (5th Cir. 1966).
Decision reversing preact district court decision
and granting relief as to registration. Also
enjoined use of literacy test or device as
defined by act. 356 F. 2d 951 (5th Cir. 1966).

United States versus State of Aug. 17, 1970 U.S. Supreme Court.... Enforcement of title I, sec. 202 (residency) Idaho.

and title III (voting age). Enforcement of title I, sec. 201 (literacy) and title 111 (voting age).

VOTING RIGHTS ACT CASE SUMMARY SHEET

Case title: U.S. v. State of Mississippi.

Civil action No.: 3791. D.J. No.: 166-41-89.

Political jurisdiction involved: State of Mississippi.

Date filed: 8/7/65. Judicial district: S.D. Miss.

Basis of claim (statutes): 42 U.S.C. 1973 (h); 15th Amend.; 14th Amend. Issue(s) involved: Whether the Mississippi Poll tax is violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment; whether the poll tax is violative of the 15th Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1971(a).

Status, if not decided:

District court decision (Include date, holding, findings and conclusions as to racial discrimination): 4/7/66.

Court cites Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), that a poll tax is an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and so holds in this case.

Case title: United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al.

Civil action No. 4423. D.J. No.: 166–79-8.

Political jurisdiction involved: Virginia.

Date filed: Aug. 10, 1965. Judicial district: Eastern District.

Basis of claim (statutes): § 10(b) VRA of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1971(c).

Issue(s) involved: Whether the Virginia poll tax is violative of the no-abridgement clause and equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Status if not decided:

District court decision: (Include date, holding, findings, and conclusions, as to racial discrimination): On April 1, 1966, a permanent injunction was ordered holding payment of a poll tax insofar as it preconditions the right to vote in the State of Virginia was violative of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Case title: U.S. v. State of Alabama.

Civil action No.: 2255-N. D.J. No.: 166-2-16.

Political jurisdiction involved: State of Alabama.

Date filed: 8/10/65. Judicial district: M. D. Ala.

Basis of claim (statutes): 42 U.S.C. § 1973h; 15th Amendment.

Issue(s) involved: Whether Alabama poll tax is violative of the 15th Amendment guarantees of the right to vote.