## Facts

- Voters and candidates in covered jurisdictions (Mississippi and Virginia) challenged post–November 1, 1964 election-law changes under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).
- Mississippi enacted: (1) at-large elections for county supervisors instead of district elections; (2) mandatory appointment (rather than election/option) of certain county school superintendents; and (3) revised requirements for independent candidates.
- Virginia maintained a write-in rule requiring the voter’s own handwriting and issued guidance on assisting illiterate voters; election officials refused to count write-in ballots using printed name labels.
- In each case, three-judge district courts dismissed the suits, reasoning the changes were not subject to VRA § 5 (or, in Virginia, not a suspended “test or device” under § 4).
- The appeals were consolidated in the Supreme Court to address the scope and enforcement of § 5’s preclearance requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether private voters and candidates may sue to prevent enforcement of unprecleared voting changes under VRA § 5.
2. Whether § 5 coverage actions may be brought in local federal district courts in the covered jurisdiction, and whether they require adjudication by a three-judge court with direct Supreme Court review.
3. Whether the challenged Mississippi and Virginia measures are “voting qualification[s] or prerequisite[s] to voting, or standard[s], practice[s], or procedure[s] with respect to voting” requiring § 5 preclearance.
4. Whether Virginia’s write-in requirements and related election administration guidance are subject to § 5 and/or barred as “tests or devices” under § 4.

## Decision

- The Court held, 7–2, that § 5 is enforceable through private suits by voters and candidates.
- The Court held that § 5 coverage suits may be filed in local federal district courts in the covered jurisdiction and are properly heard by three-judge courts with direct appeal.
- The Court construed § 5 broadly to reach all changes in election rules or administration in covered jurisdictions, including changes that appear minor.
- The Court concluded the Mississippi enactments and the Virginia write-in-related measures were covered by § 5 and therefore could not be enforced unless precleared.
- The Court reversed or vacated the dismissals and remanded for injunctive relief barring enforcement until § 5 preclearance was obtained.

## Legal Principles

- VRA § 5 permits private plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief preventing implementation of covered voting changes that lack federal preclearance.
- A local federal district court may determine whether a challenged measure is covered by § 5; if covered, the jurisdiction must obtain preclearance from the U.S. Attorney General or approval from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before enforcement.
- “Standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting” in § 5 is interpreted broadly to include structural and administrative election changes that can affect how votes are cast, counted, or aggregated, including changes that may dilute minority voting strength.
- When a covered change has not been precleared, the appropriate remedy is an injunction against its enforcement pending compliance with § 5.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed that private litigants may enforce VRA § 5 in local federal court and held that § 5’s preclearance requirement reaches a wide range of election-law changes, requiring covered jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before implementing even small alterations to voting procedures.


Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969)