Speech #900295123

The effect of the New York law was to disenfranchise. among others. several hundred thousand citizens of New York who had migrated. or whose ancestors had migrated. from Puerto Rico and who were admittedly literate in the Spanish language. but who were not literate in English. Section 4e provided that no person who demonstrates that he has completed the sixth primary grade in any public school in. or in a private school accredited by. any State. the District of Columbia. or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. where the predominant classroom language was other than English. shall be denied the right to vote because of his inability to read. write. understand or interpret any matter in the English language. In effect. section 4e provided that where literacy tests are imposed as a voting qualification. literacy in a language other than English suffices. provided that the individual had received his primary education in such other language in an "Americanflag" school. Registered voters of the State of New York challenged the constitutionality of section 4e. They urged that under pertinent provisions of the U.S. Constitution. determination of the qualifications for voting was reserved to the States. and that Congress was granted no constitutional power to override valid State requirements. A threejudge district court. one judge dissenting. sustained the petition and granted an injunction against enforcement of section 4e. The Supreme Court. two Justices dissenting. as I have noted. reversed the district court. holding that section 4e is a valid exercise by Congress of the power granted to it by section 5 of the 14th amendment. and that under the supremacy clause. the New York English literacy test cannot be enforced to the extent that it is inconsistent with section 4e of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Prior to enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. the New York English literacy requirement had been challenged unsuccessfully in both New York State courts and in Federal court on grounds that it was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. In Morgan. the Supreme Court did not base its decision on a holding that the New York law. either per se or in its application. constituted invidious discrimination which rendered it unconstitutional.