In the case of Anderson et al. v. Martin (1963), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring racial labels on ballots for candidates was unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that such labeling could influence voters' decisions and encourage racial discrimination, which is contrary to equal protection under law principles. This ruling reinforced that any state action encouraging or promoting private prejudice is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson et al. v. Martin, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to strike down a Louisiana law requiring racial identification on ballots was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that there was no clear constitutional violation in this case and thus, it should have been left to the democratic process rather than decided by court intervention. According to him, while such laws may be unwise or offensive, they do not necessarily infringe upon any specific constitutional rights unless proven otherwise with substantial evidence which he believed was lacking in this particular case.