Question: Which court case set voting requirements, Oregon v. Mitchell or Barron v. Baltimore?

Context paragraphs:
Pacific Century International, Ltd. v. Does: Pacific Century International, Ltd. v. Does 1-101 is a court case where Pacific Century International requested to subpoena the names and identities of 101 BitTorrent users (elsewhere noted as Does) whose IP Addresses were tied to downloading one of their copyrighted works.  The resulting court decision permitted Pacific Century International to subpoena the identity of Doe 1, but dismissed claims against Does 2-101 for failure to demonstrate that the Does had operated as a single group while distributing the torrent, preventing each users' subpoena request from being enjoined into a single court filing.  This case set a precedent for disallowing filings against large groups of IP addresses used to distribute copyrighted works over peer-to-peer networks.

State v. Whitmarsh: State v. Whitmarsh was a South Dakota Supreme Court case decided on November 18, 1910, which asked whether or not fellatio, or oral sex, should be classified as sodomy.  The contemporary federal common law definition of sodomy did not include fellatio.  The court ruled that fellatio was an "abominable and disgusting" crime against nature and outlawed it between any two persons, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation or age.  The case set a precedent for other states' laws and remained in effect in South Dakota for the next 66 years, until all sodomy laws, including the "crime against nature" statute, were abolished by the South Dakota Legislature in 1976.

Oregon v. Mitchell: Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) was a Supreme Court case which held that the United States Congress could set voting age requirements for federal elections but not for local or state elections.  The case also upheld Congress's nationwide prohibition on literacy tests and similar "tests or devices" used as voting qualifications as defined in the "Voting Rights Act of 1965".

Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15: Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a longstanding New York State statute requiring that to be eligible to vote in certain school district elections, an individual must either own or rent taxable real property within the school district, be the spouse of a property owner or lessor, or be the parent or guardian of a child attending a public school in the district.  By a 5-to-3 vote, the court held that these voting requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

North Dakota elections, 2016: North Dakota held two statewide elections in 2016: a primary election on Tuesday, June 14, and a general election on Tuesday, November 8.  In addition, each township elected officers on Tuesday, March 15, and each school district selected a date between April 1 and June 30 to hold their elections.  This would have been the first election since the state legislature revoked the ability to use a student or military ID to satisfy state ID voting requirements, but a court ruling in August struck the down the provision, and the election was held under the 2013 rules.

Lau Ow Bew v. United States: Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U.S. 47 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case.  Occurring at the beginning of the era of Chinese Exclusion as well as the formation of the United States courts of appeals, the case set precedents for the interpretation of the rights of Chinese merchants as well as the jurisdiction of the new courts.  The ruling relied heavily the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, the Angell Treaty of 1880, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the amendments to the Act in 1884, as well as the Evarts Act of 1891.  The case helped to establish not only the rights of the Chinese merchant class, but also informed future cases about the power of the Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the perception of Chinese immigrants.

Mary Beth Tinker: Mary Beth Tinker is an American free speech activist known for her role in the 1969 "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District" Supreme Court case, which ruled that Warren Harding Junior High School could not punish her for wearing a black armband in school in support of a truce in the Vietnam War.  The case set a precedent for student speech in schools.

Barron v. Baltimore: Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.)  243 (1833), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law.  The Court established a precedent that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments.

Winters v. United States: Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) , was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying water rights of American Indian reservations.  This doctrine was meant to clearly define the water rights of American Indians in cases where the rights were not clear.  The case was first argued on October 24, 1907 and a decision was reached January 6, 1908.  This case set the standards for the United States government to acknowledge the vitality of American Indian water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of American Indian people.

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. ___ (2013) , is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship.  In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.

Supporting paragraphs: Oregon v. Mitchell Barron v. Baltimore
Answer: Oregon v. Mitchell