Basically Law

Read the opinion here.

Issue.  Does Congress have the Constitutional power, under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to pass a law that prevents States from denying the vote to certain individuals who cannot read or write English?

Background.  Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, no person who has successfully completed the 6th grade in an accredited school in Puerto Rico in which the language of instruction was not English, shall not be denied the right to vote in any election because of the inability to read or write English.  A group of registered voters in New York City challenged the constitutionality of that provision because it prohibited enforcement of the election laws of New York which required an ability to read and write English in order to vote.

The Supreme Court found the law to be Constitutional because it was a proper exercise of Congressional power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

Court's Analysis.  Must there be a judicially determined violation of the 14th Amendment for Congress to legislate under Section 5 of that Amendment?  In other words, as New York argued, Congress could not pass a law invalidating a State law under Section 5 unless the courts first determine whether the law itself violates the 14th Amendment.  The Court found that no such judicial determination is necessary.  If the courts had to first find a 14th Amendment violation for Congress to act, it would "confine the legislative power in this context to the insignificant role of abrogating only those state laws that the judicial branch was prepared to adjudge unconstitutional."

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the same broad powers expressed in the Necessary and Proper Cluase.  Thus, the Supreme Court need not find New York's law violates the 14th Amendment before determining whether Congressional action is constitutional under Section 5.

The Court only needs to determine whether the law is appropriate legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment.  Is the law an enactment to enforce the 14th Amendment; is it plainly adapted to that end; and is it not prohibited by, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution?  The Court found the federal law to be an appropriate enforcement of the 14th Amendment.

Clearly, the law was an enactment to enforce equal protection.  The law was to secure the Puerto Rican community residing in New York non-discriminatory treatment from the government in the right to vote.  Further, the law would aid this community in better obtaining "perfect equality of civil rights and equal protection."  Simply, the law would give this community a say in government through the power of the vote.

The fact that the law only applied to Puerto Ricans educated in non-English schools and not to others who were educated in foreign non-English schools in inapposite.  The law itself expanded rights, not restricted them.  Congress can enforce reform one step a time.  Further, Congress may have passed the law in recognition of the special and unique historical relationship between Puerto Rico and Congress and believed that such a law would encourage migration from Puerto Rico to the States.

Regardless, the law is a constitutionally authorized use of Congressional power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.