Also known as: 15th Amendment · Amendment XV · XV Amendment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional amendment ratified in 1870 that prohibits the United States or any state from denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Its second section grants Congress power to enforce the prohibition through appropriate legislation. That enforcement authority permits prophylactic measures but remains subject to limits of equal state sovereignty when Congress imposes disparate burdens on some states.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felix Franco, a county clerk in a state covered only because of litigation from the 1970s, must obtain federal approval before altering candidate filing deadlines. He sues, claiming the coverage formula rests on decades-old data. The court holds that the Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power does not justify singling out his state without current evidence of discrimination.
Felicity French challenges a congressional map that snakes through minority neighborhoods to create one oddly shaped majority-minority district. The legislature admits race predominated over traditional districting criteria. The court invalidates the plan under the Fifteenth Amendment because the design subordinates compactness and political boundaries to racial considerations.
Felipe Figueroa sues a city that bars citizens of one race from local elections. He argues the Fifteenth Amendment directly prohibits the city from denying the vote on account of race. The court agrees that the Fifteenth Amendment supplies a substantive limit enforceable against state and local governments.
Fatima Flores alleges that her state's legislative districts systematically dilute minority votes. The state argues the claim presents a nonjusticiable political question. The court holds that the Fifteenth Amendment claim is justiciable because courts can apply manageable standards to determine whether the districts deny the right to vote on account of race.
Francois Fortier presents statewide statistics showing that election officials apply voter qualification rules more stringently in minority precincts. He claims the pattern violates the Fifteenth Amendment by denying equal voting access. The court rules that statistical disparities alone do not prove purposeful racial discrimination required to establish a Fifteenth Amendment violation.
Felicia Fuentes wins election but the House refuses to seat her, citing prior conduct. She sues, asserting that exclusion from office abridges her constituents' Fifteenth Amendment voting rights. The court holds that the House may not exclude a duly elected member on grounds unrelated to constitutional qualifications, thereby protecting the voters' Fifteenth Amendment rights.
Section 2 empowers Congress to enact appropriate legislation enforcing the amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. That authority permits prophylactic rules that prevent or remedy violations, provided the legislation remains congruent and proportional to identified constitutional harms.
No. When Congress subjects only some states to preclearance requirements, it must justify the disparate treatment with current evidence of ongoing violations and extraordinary justification tied to present conditions. Reliance on coverage formulas frozen decades earlier violates principles of equal state sovereignty under the Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power.
…guaranty, and held on the merits that they had. And only last Term, in Gomillion v. Lightfoot , 364 U. S. 339, we applied the Fifteenth Amendment to strike down a redrafting of municipal boundaries which effected a discriminatory impairment of voting rights, in the face of what a majority of the Court of Appeals thought to be a…
…pattern of discriminatory impact demonstrated a constitutional violation. In Gomillion , a state legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment by altering the boundaries of a particular city "from a square to an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure." 364 U. S., at 340. The alterations excluded 395 of 400 black voters without…
…in this case. The Force Act is limited to election challenges where a denial of the right to vote in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment is alleged. See 28 U. S. C. § 1344. Further, the Act was passed five years before the original version of § 1331 was enacted. While it might be inferred that Congress intended to give each…
…and evolving standards of our equal protection jurisprudence, and the special historical and constitutional role of the Fifteenth Amendment and its implementing legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The facts are straightforward. In 1990, the Attorney General of the United States objected to a congressional redistricting…
…of “citizens of the several states,” 6 F. Cas., at 552, yet Congress and the States still found it necessary to adopt the Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment requires purposeful racial discrimination. Statistical patterns showing disparate impact are relevant but insufficient by themselves to prove a violation without evidence that race motivated the challenged action.
Yes. Congress may enact legislation reaching private actors whose conduct frustrates the right to vote free from racial discrimination, provided the statute is a congruent and proportional response to a pattern of interference documented in the legislative record.