Supreme Court Destroys Jim Crow Ballot in LA.

Press Release
January 16, 1964

Supreme Court Destroys Jim Crow Ballot in LA. preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Loose Pages. Supreme Court Destroys Jim Crow Ballot in LA., 1964. 471c26b4-bd92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/cecdd076-a726-4133-864f-60716cbf3ef4/supreme-court-destroys-jim-crow-ballot-in-la. Accessed July 30, 2025.

    Copied!

    ‘ 

PRESS RELEASE 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
TOCOLUMBUS CIRCLE + NEWYORK19,N.Y. © JUdson 6-8397 
DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS JACK GREENBERG CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY President Director-Counsel Associate Counsel 

SUPREME COURT DESTROYS 
JIM CROW BALLOT IN LA. 

January 16, 1964 

WASHINGTCN---The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Louisiana 
law requiring publication of the race of candidates for public office 
on nomination papers and ballots this week, 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund atterneys, who won the decision, had pointed out that "designation as a Negro (in Louisiana) identifies 
the candidate with a group that is...by state policy, unfit for 
office," 

Justice Tom Clark, whe wrote the unanimous ruling, concluded that "race is a factor upon which the statute Operates, and its involvement promotes the ultimate discrimination, which is sufficient 
to make it invalid," 

Jack Greenberg, director-counsel ef the Fund said the ruling "makes it clear once more that ours is a nation in which Government cannot classify citizens according to race, 

"This decision also makes it clear that our constitution is 
colorblind, This Louisiana law is the closest thing we have had to the Nazi edict that Jews be required to wear yellow armbands," 

Legal Defense Fund attorneys argued the case in behalf of Dupuy 
H. Anderson and Acie J. Belton, Negro citizens of East Baton Rouge parish, 

Both were candidates for nomination to the school board in their home parish during the June 8, 1962 Democratic party primary election. 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys participating in the case 
included Mr, Greenberg, who argued before the Supreme Court, James 
M. Nabrit, III and Johnnie A. Jones who were of counsel, 

=c0me 

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 
ATLANTA SCHOOL CASES 

WASHINGTON---The U.S, Supreme Court this week advised the NAACP Legal 
Defense Fund that it will hear arguments on the Atlanta school inte- 
gration cases March 30th, 

Jack Greenberg, the Fund's director-counsel, said the caurt's announcement "demonstrates its concern with the pace of school de- 
segregation," 

"The cases involve validity of a twelve year plan and a pupil 
assignment plan. Desegregation of teachers is also a major issue, 

"We are grateful for the opportunity to present our arguments 
before the next sehool term," he said. 

Atlanta Negra} parents began petitioning their local school 
authorities for desegregation of that city’s public schools in 1955, one year after the Supreme Court's Brown decision, ( ) 

more 

Ss 



Supreme Court To Hear 
Atlanta School Cases -2- 

Yet today, “Atlanta's segregated school system is still 

essentially intact," Legal Defense attorneys pointed out in their 

petition to the Supreme Court, 

They added that "Atlanta now has a total public school popu- 

lation of approximately 106,000---about 57,500 whites and 48,000 

Negroes. 

"Although Negroes constitute 45 per cent of the total, they have 

been alloted only 33 per cent of the school buildings and 40 per cent 

of the teachers and principals. 

"They also suffer serious overcrowding in certain schools and 

higher pupil-teacher ratios," Legal Defense attorneys stated, 

The lawyers appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 
entered in June of 1963. 

2302

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top