# Allen v. State Board of Elections

> Supreme Court of the United States · October 14, 1968 · 393 U.S. 544

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423916

## Case

- **Full name:** ALLEN Et Al. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** October 14, 1968
- **Citations:** 393 U.S. 544; 89 S. Ct. 817; 22 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2378
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Marshall
- **Judges:** Warren, Harlan, Marshall, Black, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 707 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423916

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that, unlike in other cases involving the three-judge court requirement, the three-judge requirement of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act should not be interpreted narrowly, because “generally a plaintiff attacking a state statute [under § 5] could also make at least a s…
- stating that the local school board had “charged that numerous statements in the letter were false and that the publication of the statements unjustifiably impugned the motives, honesty, integrity, truthfulness, responsibility and competence of both the [bjoard and the school …
- finding that legislative history of Voting Rights Act “supports the view that Congress intended to reach any state enactment which altered the election law of a covered State in even a minor way” including a new procedure for write-in votes and changing from paper ballots to v…
- holding the language "voting qualifications or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure" was employed in § 2 in order to be "all-inclusive of any kind of practice" that might be used to deny citizens the right to vote
- holding that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to eliminate “the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Marshall,
whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,
concurring and dissenting.
I join Parts I through V of the Court’s opinion. However, largely for the reasons stated in Part II of my *595 Brother Harlan’s opinion, I believe the relief suggested by the Solicitor General should be ordered in the Mississippi cases. Accordingly, I dissent from Part VI of the Court’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423916. Public record. Not legal advice.