Appellants, residents of a Louisiana parish, are Negroes. Both
sought election to the parish School Board in the 1962 Democratic
Party primary election. Prior to the election, they filed this suit
in federal court to enjoin the enforcement of Louisiana Revised
Statutes §18:1174.1, which requires that, in all primary, general
or special elections, the nomination papers and ballots shall
designate the race of the candidates. A three-judge District Court
upheld the constitutionality of the statute.
Held: the compulsory designation by Louisiana of the
race of the candidate on the ballot operates as a discrimination
against appellants, and is violative of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Pp.
375 U. S.
402-404.
(a) The vice of the statute lies in the placing of the power of
the State behind a racial classification that induces racial
prejudice at the polls. P.
375 U. S. 402.
(b) The challenged provision of the statute cannot be deemed to
be reasonably designed to meet legitimate governmental interests in
informing the electorate as to candidates. P.
375 U. S.
403.
(c) The contention that the statute is nondiscriminatory because
the labeling provision applies equally to Negro and white cannot be
sustained. Pp.
375 U. S.
403-404.
206 F.
Supp. 700 reversed.
Page 375 U. S. 400
MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Louisiana Revised Statutes § 18:1174.1 provides that in all
primary, general or special elections, the nomination papers and
ballots shall designate the race of candidates for elective office.
[
Footnote 1] The question
involved in this appeal is whether this requirement violates the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment or the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. A three-judge United States District
Page 375 U. S. 401
Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, upheld the
constitutionality of the statute by a 2-to-1 vote,
206 F.
Supp. 700. On direct appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 1253, we noted
probable jurisdiction, 372 U.S. 904.
I
Appellants, residents of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are
Negroes. Each sought election to the School Board of that parish in
the 1962 Democratic Party primary election. Prior to the election,
they filed this suit against the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are
Negroes. Each sought election to the School Board of that parish in
the 1962 Democratic Party primary election. Prior to the Election
they, filed this suit against the Secretary of State of Louisiana
seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Act 538 of the 1960 Louisiana
Legislature, § 1174.1 of Title 18 of the Louisiana Revised
Statutes, which requires the Secretary to print, in parentheses,
the race of each candidate opposite his name on all ballots.
Asserting that the statute violated,
inter alia, the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, appellants sought both
preliminary and permanent injunctions and a temporary restraining
order. A United States district judge denied the motion for a
temporary restraining order, and a three-judge court was convened.
After a hearing on the merits, the preliminary injunction was
denied, with one judge dissenting. Thereafter, the appellants
sought to amend their complaint so as to show that the primary
election had been held and that both appellants had been defeated
[
Footnote 2] because of the
operation and enforcement of the statute here under attack. They
further alleged that they
"intend to be candidates in the next duly constituted democratic
primary election for nomination as members of the East Baton Rouge
Parish School Board. . . ."
Leave to amend was denied by the district judge and the
three-judge court thereafter denied the request for a permanent
injunction. We have concluded that the compulsory designation by
Louisiana of the race
Page 375 U. S. 402
of the candidate on the ballot operates as a discrimination
against appellants, and is therefore violative of the Fourteenth
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. [
Footnote 3] In view of this, we do not reach appellants'
other contentions.
II
At the outset, it is well that we point out what this case does
not involve. It has nothing whatever to do with the right of a
citizen to cast his vote for whomever he chooses and for whatever
reason he pleases, or to receive all information concerning a
candidate which is necessary to a proper exercise of his franchise.
It has to do only with the right of a State to require or encourage
its voters to discriminate upon the grounds of race. In the
abstract, Louisiana imposes no restriction upon anyone's candidacy,
nor upon an elector's choice in the casting of his ballot. But by
placing at racial label on a candidate at the most crucial stage in
the electoral process -- the instant before the vote is cast -- the
State furnishes a vehicle by which racial prejudice may be so
aroused as to operate against one group because of race and for
another. This is true because, by directing the citizen's attention
to the single consideration of race or color, the State indicates
that a candidate's race or color is an important -- perhaps
paramount -- consideration in the citizen's choice, which may
decisively influence the citizen to cast his ballot along racial
lines. Hence, in a State or voting district where Negroes
predominate, that race is likely to be favored by a racial
designation on the ballot, while in those communities where other
races are in the majority, they may be preferred. The vice lies not
in the resulting injury, but in the placing of the power of the
State behind a racial classification that induces racial prejudice
at the polls.
Page 375 U. S. 403
III
As we said in
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.
S. 449,
357 U. S. 463
(1958): "The crucial factor is the interplay of governmental and
private action. . . ." Here the statute under attack prescribes the
form and content of the official ballot used in all elections in
Louisiana. The requirement that
"[e]very application for or notification or declaration of
candidacy, and every certificate of nomination and every nomination
paper filed . . . shall show for each candidate named therein,
whether such candidate is of the Caucasian race, the Negro race or
other specified race"
was not placed in the statute until 1960. Prior to that time,
the primary election ballot contained no information on the
candidates other than their names; nor did the general election
ballot, which only grouped the named candidates according to their
respective political party. The 1960 amendment added "race" as the
single item of information other than the name of the candidate.
This addition to the statute in the light of "private attitudes and
pressures" towards Negroes at the time of its enactment [
Footnote 4] could only result in that
"repressive effect" which "was brought to bear only after the
exercise of governmental power."
Bates v. Little Rock,
361 U. S. 516,
361 U. S. 524
(1960).
Nor can the attacked provision be deemed to be reasonably
designed to meet legitimate governmental interests in informing the
electorate as to candidates. We see no relevance in the State's
pointing up the race of the candidate as bearing upon his
qualifications for office. Indeed, this factor in itself
"underscores the purely racial character and purpose" of the
statute.
Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.
S. 683,
373 U. S. 688
(1963).
The State contends that its Act is nondiscriminatory because the
labeling provision applies equally to Negro
Page 375 U. S. 404
and white. Obviously, Louisiana may not bar Negro citizens from
offering themselves as candidates for public office, nor can it
encourage its citizens to vote for a candidate solely on account of
race.
Cf. Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co.,
323 U. S. 192,
323 U. S. 203
(1944). And that which cannot be done by express statutory
prohibition cannot be done by indirection. Therefore, we view the
alleged equality as superficial. Race is the factor upon which the
statute operates, and its involvement promotes the ultimate
discrimination, which is sufficient to make it invalid.
Goss v.
Board of Education, supra, at
373 U. S. 688.
The judgment is therefore
Reversed.
[
Footnote 1]
La.Rev.Stat. (1960 Supp.) § 18:1174.1:
"Designation of race of candidates on paper and ballots"
"A. Every application for or notification or declaration of
candidacy, and every certificate of nomination and every nomination
paper filed in any state or local primary, general or special
election for any elective office in this state shall show for each
candidate named therein, whether such candidate is of the Caucasian
race, the Negro race or other specified race."
"B. Chairmen of party committees, party executive committees,
presidents of boards of supervisors of election or any person or
persons required by law to certify to the Secretary of State the
names of candidates to be placed on the ballots shall cause to be
shown in such certification whether each candidate named therein is
of the Caucasian race, Negro race, or other specified race, which
information shall be obtained from the applications for or
notifications or declarations of candidacy or from the certificates
of nomination or nomination papers, as the case may be."
"C. On the ballots to be used in any state or local primary,
general or special election the Secretary of State shall cause to
be printed within parentheses ( ) beside the name of each
candidate, the race of the candidate, whether Caucasian, Negro, or
other specified race, which information shall be obtained from the
documents described in Subsection A or B of this Section. The
racial designation on the ballots shall be in print of the same
size as the print in the names of the candidates on the
ballots."
[
Footnote 2]
Anderson was defeated in the primary and Belton in a subsequent
run-off.
[
Footnote 3]
"No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws." U.S.Const., Amend. XIV, § 1.
[
Footnote 4]
See Wollett, Race Relations, 21 La.L.Rev. 85
(1960).