449 Outline

8/2/2019 449 Outline

1/26

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

1

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning theMissouri law which ordained "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."

Virginia Minor, a leader of the women's suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to

allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the Missouri voting legislation saying that the limitation of suffrage to male citizens was not aninfringement of Minor's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the lower court's ruling on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment does not add to theprivileges and immunities of a citizen, and that historically "citizen" and "eligible voter" have not been synonymous. Since the United StatesConstitution did not proviand citizens. It rested solely on the lack of provisions within the Constitution for women's suffrage.

Subsequent History

Minorhas not been explicitly overruled by another U.S. Supreme Court decision. In fact,Minoris still cited for the proposition that the

Constitution does not confer the right to vote. However, as the decision relates to women's suffrage in particular, it is no longer good law.

Holding: The Court held that voting is not a privilege of citizenship.

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), held that convicted felons could be barred from voting without violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding: Convicted felons may be constitutionally disenfranchised.

Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections: 360 U.S. 45 (1959), argued 1819 May 1959, decided 8 June 1959 by vote of 9 to 0;Douglas for the Court.Lassiteris an important case in the history of the federal protection of voting rights. The Court rejected a black citizen'schallenge to a state literacy test, finding that states have broad powers to determine the conditions of suffrage. The literacy test applied to votersof all races, and the Court would not draw the inference that it was being used to facilitate racial discrimination.

Lassiterhad to be addressed in assessing the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The act temporarily suspended literacy and other

tests imposed as prerequisites to voting. InSouth Carolina v. Katzenbach(1966), the Court distinguishedLassiteron the ground that in moststates covered by the 1965 act prerequisites to voting were instituted and administered in a discriminatory fashion for many years. InKatzenbachv.Morgan(1966), New York tested the 1965 act's effective prohibition of application of an English literacy requirement to persons whocompleted the sixth grade in a non English speaking American school. The act thus gave voting privileges to many former residents of PuertoRico who had migrated to New York.

If the Court had adhered to its approach in Lassiter, it would have struck down the literacy requirement only if a court would conclude that therequirement discriminated against non English speakers. But the Court refused to ask theLassiter like question whether the judiciary wouldfind the English literacy requirement unconstitutional. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment required only that legislation be appropriate toenforce the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was Congress's decision to make. The challenged provision sought tosecure for the New York Puerto Rican community nondiscriminatory treatment and was appropriate to enforce the Equal Protection Clause.Subsequent amendments to the Voting Rights Act prohibited all literacy tests as a prerequisite for voting.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax wasunconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitutionprohibited poll taxes in federal elections; the Supreme Court extended this prohibition to state elections.

Background

The case was filed by Virginia resident Annie E. Harper, who was unable to register without having to pay a poll tax. She brought the suit onbehalf of other poor residents and herself. After being dismissed by a U.S. district court, the case went to the United States Supreme Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1874http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Missourihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Minorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffragehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missourihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_immunities_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_votehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendmenthttp://www.answers.com/topic/voting-rights-act-of-1965-1http://www.answers.com/topic/south-carolina-v-katzenbach-1http://www.answers.com/topic/south-carolina-v-katzenbach-1http://www.answers.com/topic/south-carolina-v-katzenbach-1http://www.answers.com/topic/south-carolina-v-katzenbach-1http://www.answers.com/topic/south-carolina-v-katzenbach-1http://www.answers.com/topic/discriminatoryhttp://www.answers.com/topic/katzenbach-v-morganhttp://www.answers.com/topic/katzenbach-v-morganhttp://www.answers.com/topic/katzenbach-v-morganhttp://www.answers.com/topic/katzenbach-v-morganhttp://www.answers.com/topic/katzenbach-v-morganhttp://www.answers.com/topic/katzenbach-v-morganhttp://www.answers.com/topic/university-of-puerto-ricohttp://www.answers.com/topic/university-of-puerto-ricohttp://www.answers.com/topic/fourteenth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitutionhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=383&page=663http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=383&page=663http://www.answers.com/topic/fourteenth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitutionhttp://www.answers.com/topic/university-of-puerto-ricohttp://www.answers.com/topic/university-of-puerto-ricohttp://www.answers.com/topic/katzenbach-v-morganhttp://www.answers.com/topic/katzenbach-v-morganhttp://www.answers.com/topic/discriminatoryhttp://www.answers.com/topic/south-carolina-v-katzenbach-1http://www.answers.com/topic/voting-rights-act-of-1965-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_votehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_immunities_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missourihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffragehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Minorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Missourihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1874http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation

8/2/2019 449 Outline

2/26


2

The Decision

In a 6 to 3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Harper. The Court noted that a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the FourteenthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voterqualifications have no relation to wealth.

This ruling reversed a prior decision by the Court,Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), which upheld the state's ability to impose poll taxes.

Holding: Where a state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise toothers, it must be determined whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest.

Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969) was a United States Supreme Court decision in which a childless bachelor living with hisparents in the Union School District challenged Section 2012 of the New YorkEducation Law which stated that voters for school districtelections must own or lease taxable realty property in the district or be parents or custodians of one or more children enrolled in a public schoollocal to the district. New York's argument was to limited the franchise to those primarily affected by education.

The other stipulations of Section 2012, which were not in dispute, were that to be a registered voter in a school district election, the person mustbe a U.S. citizen, be a resident of the school district, and be at least 21 years old.

Lower courts had dismissed the claim but the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts on appeal finding the additional stipulations of realty

property and parent or custodian of a child in a school in the district to be an unreasonable restriction on the right to vote.

Holding: Where a state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise toothers, it must be determined whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest.

Colegrove v. Green 328 U.S. 549 (1946), argued 78 Mar. 1946, decided 10 June 1946 by vote of 4 to 3; Frankfurter for the Court, black indissent, Jackson not participating (Stone's death left one vacancy). Qualified voters challenged the apportionment of congressional districts inIllinois as lacking appropriate compactness and equality. A threejudge district court dismissed the case and Justices Felix Frankfurter, StanleyReed, and Harold Burton affirmed that action. These justices branded apportionment a political question and reasoned that invalidation of Illinoisdistricts might, in requiring statewide elections, create an evil greater than that remedied. Such party contests should be resolved by the statelegislature subject to congressional supervision. Justice Wiley B. Rutledge concurred in the result, convinced that the short time between ajudicial judgment and the impending election made an equitable remedy difficult. Justice Hugo Black, joined by William Douglas and FrankMurphy, believed the failure to reapportion the Illinois districts since 1901 denied the equal protection of the laws and of the guarantee in ArticleI of the right to vote for congressional representatives.

Weakened by the close division of the justices and by the continuing inaction of state legislatures, the Court declared in Bakerv. Carr(1962) thatapportionment issues were cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This action set the stage for later decisionsrequiring approximate equality of electoral districts.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmarkUnited States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine,deciding that reapportionment (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enablingfederal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that reapportionment of legislativedistricts is a "political question," and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.

Background

Plaintiff Charles Baker was a Republican who lived in Shelby County, Tennessee, the county in which Memphis is located. His complaint was

that though the Tennessee State Constitution required that legislative districts be redrawn every ten years according to the federal census, toprovide for districts of substantially equal population, Tennessee had not in fact redistricted since the census of 1901. By the time of Baker'slawsuit, the population had shifted such that his district in Shelby County had about ten times as many residents as some of the rural districts.Representationally, the votes of rural citizens were worth more than the votes of urban citizens. Baker's argument was that this discrepancy wascausing him to fail to receive the "equal protection of the laws" required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant Joe Carr was sued in hisposition as Secretary of State for Tennessee. Carr was not the person who set the district lines the state legislature had done thatbut was suedex officioas the person who was ultimately responsible for the conduct of elections in the state and for the publication of district maps. The Stateof Tennessee argued that legislative districts were essentially political questions, not judicial ones, as had been held by a plurality opinion of theCourt inColegrove v. Green(1946), wherein Justice Felix Frankfurter declared that, "Courts ought not to enter this political thicket." Frankfurterbelieved that relief for legislative malapportionment had to be attained through the political process.

The Court's decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breedlove_v._Suttles&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breedlove_v._Suttles&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breedlove_v._Suttles&action=edit&redlink=1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=302&page=277http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_schoolhttp://www.answers.com/topic/andrew-jacksonhttp://www.answers.com/topic/felix-frankfurterhttp://www.answers.com/topic/stanley-forman-reedhttp://www.answers.com/topic/harold-iihttp://www.answers.com/topic/harold-hitz-burtonhttp://www.answers.com/topic/wiley-blount-rutledgehttp://www.answers.com/topic/hugo-blackhttp://www.answers.com/topic/william-o-douglashttp://www.answers.com/topic/frank-murphyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/equal-protection-clausehttp://www.answers.com/topic/right-to-vote-1http://www.answers.com/topic/baker-v-carrhttp://www.answers.com/topic/baker-v-carrhttp://www.answers.com/topic/baker-v-carrhttp://www.answers.com/topic/baker-v-carrhttp://www.answers.com/topic/baker-v-carrhttp://www.answers.com/topic/cognizablehttp://www.answers.com/topic/fourteenth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justiciabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County,_Tennesseehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis,_Tennesseehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Secretary_of_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_General_Assemblyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_officiohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_officiohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colegrove_v._Greenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colegrove_v._Greenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colegrove_v._Greenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Frankfurterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Frankfurterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colegrove_v._Greenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_officiohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_General_Assemblyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Secretary_of_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis,_Tennesseehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County,_Tennesseehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justiciabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://www.answers.com/topic/fourteenth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitutionhttp://www.answers.com/topic/cognizablehttp://www.answers.com/topic/baker-v-carrhttp://www.answers.com/topic/right-to-vote-1http://www.answers.com/topic/equal-protection-clausehttp://www.answers.com/topic/frank-murphyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/william-o-douglashttp://www.answers.com/topic/hugo-blackhttp://www.answers.com/topic/wiley-blount-rutledgehttp://www.answers.com/topic/harold-hitz-burtonhttp://www.answers.com/topic/harold-iihttp://www.answers.com/topic/stanley-forman-reedhttp://www.answers.com/topic/felix-frankfurterhttp://www.answers.com/topic/andrew-jacksonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_schoolhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=302&page=277http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breedlove_v._Suttles&action=edit&redlink=1

8/2/2019 449 Outline

3/26


3

The decision of Baker v. Carr was one of the most wrenching in the Court's history. The case had to be put over for reargument because inconference no clear majority emerged for either side of the case. Justice Charles Evans Whittaker was so torn over the case that he eventually hadto recuse himself, and the arduous decisional process in Baker is often blamed for Whittaker's subsequent health problems, which forced him toresign from the Court.

The opinion was finally handed down in March 1962, nearly a year after it was initially argued. The Court split 6 to 2 in ruling that Baker's casewas justiciable, producing, in addition to the opinion of the Court by Justice William J. Brennan, three concurring opinions and two dissentingopinions. Brennan reformulated the political question doctrine, proposing a six-part test for determining which questions were "political" innature. Cases which are political in nature are marked by:

1. "Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;" as an example of this,Brennan cited issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, arguing that cases involving such matters would be "politicalquestions"2. "A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;"3. "The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;"4. "The impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches ofgovernment;"5. "An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;"6. "The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."

Justice Tom C. Clarkswitched his vote at the last minute to a concurrence on the substance of Baker's claims, which would have enabled amajority which could have granted relief for Baker, but instead the Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court. Frankfurter, joined by

John Marshall Harlan II, dissented vigorously and at length, arguing that the Court had shunted aside history and judicial restraint and violatedthe separation of powers between legislatures and Courts.

The large majority in this case can in many ways be attributed to Justice Brennan, who convinced Potter Stewart that the case was a narrow rulingdealing only with plaintiff power to challenge the statute. Brennan also talked down Justices Black and Douglas from their usual absolutistpositions to achieve a compromise.[1]

Aftermath

Having declared reapportionment issues justiciable inBaker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating such claims inReynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S.533 (1964). InGray v. Sanders, the Court formulated the famous "one-person, one-vote" standard for legislative districting, holding that eachindividual had to be weighted equally in legislative apportionment. The Court decided that in states with bicameral legislatures both houses had tobe apportioned on this standard, voiding the provision of the Arizona constitution which had provided for two state senators from each countyand similar provisions elsewhere. (Even the Tennessee constitution, enforcement of which was the original basis for the case, has a provisionwhich prevented counties from being "split" and portions of a county being attached to other counties or parts of counties in the creation of a

district which was overridden, and today counties are frequently split among districts in forming Tennessee State Senate districts.) However,"One-person, one-vote" was first applied as a standard for congressionaldistricts in 1964'sWesberry v. Sanders.

Baker v. Carrand subsequent cases fundamentally altered the nature of political representation in America, requiring not just Tennessee butnearly every state to redistrict during the 1960s, often several times. This re-apportionment increased the political power of urban centers andlimited the influence of more rural, conservative interests that had benefited from the Supreme Court ruling injusticiable such "political"questions as those of apportionment.[2]After he left the Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren called theBaker v. Carrline of cases the most importantin his tenure as Chief Justice.

Holding: The reapportionment of state legislative districts is not a political question, and is justiciable by the federal courts.

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equalin population.

Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, had challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. The Alabama Constitution provided thatthere be at least one representative per county and as many senatorial districts as there were senators. Ratio variances as great as 41 to 1 from onesenatorial district to another existed in the Alabama Senate (i.e., the number of eligible voters voting for one senator was in one case 41 times thenumber of voters in another).

Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question inBaker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court wentfurther in order to correct what seemed to it to be egregious examples of malapportionment which were serious enough to undermine the premisesunderlying republican government. BeforeReynolds, urban counties were often drastically underrepresented.

Among the more egregious pre-Reynolds disparities (compiled by Congressman Morris K. Udall):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Evans_Whittakerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_C._Clarkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Simshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Simshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Simshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizonahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representativeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warrenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_legislature_(United_States)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_County,_Alabamahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabamahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_K._Udallhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_K._Udallhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabamahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_County,_Alabamahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_legislature_(United_States)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warrenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representativeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizonahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Simshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_C._Clarkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Evans_Whittaker

8/2/2019 449 Outline

4/26


4

In the Connecticut General Assembly, one House district had 191 people; another, 81,000 (424 times more). In the New Hampshire General Court, one township with three people had a Representative in the lower house; this was the same

representation given another district with a population of 3,244. The vote of a resident of the first township was therefore 1,081 timesmore powerful at the Capitol.

In the Utah State Legislature, the smallest district had 165 people, the largest 32,380 (196 times the population of the other). In the Vermont General Assembly, the smallest district had 36 people, the largest 35,000, a ratio of almost 1,000 to 1. Los Angeles County, California, with 6 million people, had one member in the California State Senate, as did the 14,000 people of

one rural county (428 times more).

In the Idaho Legislature, the smallest Senate district had 951 people; the largest, 93,400 (97 times more). In the Nevada Senate, 17 members represented as many as 127,000 or as few as 568 people, a ratio of 224 to 1.

The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote". In his majoritydecision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities oreconomic interests."

In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II lambasted the Court for ignoring the original intention of the Equal Protection Clause, which he argueddid not extend to voting rights. Harlan claimed the Court was imposing its own idea of "good government" on the states, stifling creativity andviolating federalism. Although the Constitution explicitly grants two senators per state, regardless of population, Harlan further claimed that ifReynolds was correct, then the United States Constitution's own provision for two United States Senators from each state would then beConstitutionally suspect as the fifty states have anything but "substantially equal populations." "One person, one vote" was extended toCongressional (but not Senatorial) districts in 1964'sWesberry v. Sanders.

Reynolds v. Sims set off a legislative firestorm in the country. Senator Everett Dirksen ofIllinois led a fight to pass a Constitutional amendmentallowing unequal legislative districts. He warned that

"...the forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If theywere, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems oftheir 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by LosAngeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.."

Dirksen was ultimately unsuccessful.

Holding: The Court struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote."

Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado

Facts of the Case

Acting on behalf of several voters in the Denver area, Andres Lucas sued various officials connected with Colorado's elections challenging theapportionment of seats in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly. Under Colorado's apportionment plan, the House of Representativeswas apportioned on the basis of population but the apportionment of the Senate was based on a combination of population and other factors(geography, compactness and contiguity, accessibility, natural boundaries, and conformity to historical divisions). Consequently, countieswith only about one-third of the State's total population would elect a majority of the Senate; the maximum population-variance ratio would beabout 3.6-to-1; and the chief metropolitan areas, with over two-thirds of the State's population, could elect only a bare majority of the Senate.When a three-judge District Court upheld the plan, stressing its recent approval by the electorate, the Supreme Court granted Lucas certiorari.

Question

Is a majority-approved state apportionment plan that permits one house of its congress to be largely apportioned on the basis of factors otherthan population distribution in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

ConclusionYes. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires all districts to be substantially apportioned on a populationbases. While noting that some deviation from strict population considerations may be permitted to offset minor underrepresentations of onegroup or another, the wholesale neglect of population considerations is unconstitutional. The Court added that although a majority of theColorado electorate approved its apportionment scheme, this cannot override even a single individual's constitutionally protected right to castan equally weighted vote. The apportionment of Colorado's Senate rendered population considerations virtually insignificant, and wastherefore unconstitutional.

Karcher v. Daggett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_General_Assemblyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_House_of_Representativeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_General_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_househttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_General_Assemblyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_person,_one_votehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warrenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinoishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicagohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Franciscohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michiganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michiganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Franciscohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicagohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinoishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sandershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warrenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_person,_one_votehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_General_Assemblyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_househttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_General_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_House_of_Representativeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_General_Assembly

8/2/2019 449 Outline

5/26


5

Facts of the Case

Democrats in control of the New Jersey Legislature designed a plan for congressional redistricting in the state which the outgoing Democraticgovernor signed into law. Even though the district populations differed by less than one percent from each other, they were clearly drawn tomaximize Democratic power in the state.

Question

Did the gerrymandering in the reapportionment plan violate Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Even though the population differences in the districts were slight, the Court held that they were unconstitutional because they "were not theresult of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality." Justice Brennan upheld past Court decisions (Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 1973, andWesberry v. Sanders, 1964) and argued that relying on a strict numerical standard of populations to assess district equality would bemisguided.

Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a Texas law which forbadeblacks from voting in the Texas Democratic primary. Because Texas was a one-party state, the Democratic Party primary was the onlycompetitive process and chance to choose among candidates. This was one of four cases brought to challenge the Texas Democratic Party's all-white primary, all of which were supported by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Fact

Dr. L.A. Nixon, a black physician in El Paso, sought to vote in the Democratic Party primary of 1924 in El Paso, Texas.[1]The defendants, whowere magistrates in charge of elections, prevented him from doing so on the basis of a Texas statute which provided that "in no event shall anegro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas." Nixon sought an injunction against the statutein federal district court. The district court dismissed the suit, and Nixon appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Nixon argued that the statute violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The defendants argued that the Court lackedjurisdiction over the issue, as it was a political question.

Ruling

The unanimous Court, speaking through Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, rejected the argument that the political question doctrine barred theCourt from deciding the case. The argument, said the Court, was "little more than a play upon words." While the injury which the plaintiff alleged

"involved political action," his suit "allege[d] and s[ought] to recover for private damage."

The Court then turned to the merits of the suit. It stated that it was unnecessary to discuss whether the statute violated the Fifteenth Amendment,"because it seems to us hard to imagine a more direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth." The Court continued:

The [Fourteenth Amendment] ... was passed, as we know, with a special intent to protect the blacks from discrimination against them.... The statute of Texas ... assumes to forbid negroes to take part in a primary election the importance of which we have indicated,discriminating against them by the distinction of color alone. States may do a good deal of classifying that it is difficult to believerational, but there are limits, and it is too clear for extended argument that color cannot be made the basis of a statutory classificationaffecting the right set up in this case.

The Court reversed the district court's dismissal of the suit.

Dissent

None.

Aftermath

Texas quickly enacted a new provision to continue restrictions on voter participation, granting authority to political parties to determine whoshould vote in their primaries. Within four months the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party passed a resolution that "all whiteDemocrats ... and none other" be allowed to participate in the approaching primary of 1927 .[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_electionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_Peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso,_Texashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso,_Texashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_Peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_electionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_citation

8/2/2019 449 Outline

6/26


6

Five years later, Dr. Nixon reappeared before the Supreme Court in another suit against the all-white primary. SeeNixon v. Condon(1932).

Holding: A Texas law prohibiting blacks from voting in the Texas Democratic Party primary violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Smith v. Allwright

Facts of the Case

A resolution of the Democratic Party of Texas, a group that the Texas Supreme Court had deemed a "voluntary association," allowed onlywhites to participate in Democratic primary elections. S.S. Allwright was a county election official; he denied Lonnie E. Smith, a black man,the right to vote in the 1940 Texas Democratic primary.

Question

Did denying blacks the right to vote in primary elections violate the Fifteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

The Court overruled its decision in Grovey v. Townsend (1935) and found the restrictions against blacks unconstitutional. Even though theDemocratic Party was a voluntary organization, the fact that Texas statutes governed the selection of county-level party leaders, the partyconducted primary elections under state statutory authority, and state courts were given exclusive original jurisdiction over contestedelections, guaranteed for blacks the right to vote in primaries. Allwright engaged in state action abridging Smith's right to vote because of hisrace. A state cannot "permit a private organization to practice racial discrimination" in elections, argued Justice Reed. (The Court's decision in

this matter was amended on June 12, 1944.)

Terry v. Adams

345 U.S. 461 (1953), argued 16 Jan. 1953, decided 4 May 1953 by vote of 8 to 1; black announced the judgment for the Court, Minton in dissent.This was the last of the socalled white primary cases. Beginning in 1889 in Fort Bend County, Texas, the Jaybird Democratic Association, orJaybird party, held an unofficial primary election to select candidates for county offices. These candidates entered the Democratic party primaryand were invariably nominated and then elected in a usually uncontested general election. White voters automatically became members; blackswere excluded. This selfgoverning, voluntary, club thus waspurposefully organized to disenfranchise blacks and circumvent the FifteenthAmendment (p. 463).

There was no majority opinion. Justice Hugo Blacksaid that the state could not countenance the exclusion of blacks from the only election thatmattered. Justice Felix Frankfurter emphasized the participation of state election officials in the discrimination. Justice Tom Clarkmaintained thatthe Jaybird party was an auxiliary of the state regulated Democratic party. Eight justices seemed to agree that the Jaybird party was performing apublic function and was therefore violating the Fifteenth Amendment. Only Justice Sherman Minton dissented, saying that the Jaybird partyconstitutionally was nothing more than another pressure group (p. 494).

Besides marking the last hurrah of the southern white primary, this decision provided a precedent for congressional proscription of private racialdiscrimination under the Fifteenth Amendment in later federal legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Burdick v. Takushi, Director Of Elections Of Hawaii

Case Summary/Synopsis

Registered voter brought action against Hawaii Director of Elections and related parties, claiming that Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting

violated First and Fourteenth Amendments. The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii struck down prohibition and denied stay

pending appeal. The Court of Appeals, 846 F.2d 587, reversed, and ordered District Court to abstain until state courts had determined whether

Hawaii's election laws in fact permitted write-in voting. The District Court certified questions, and the Hawaii Supreme Court, 70 Haw. 498, 776

P.2d 824, ruled that write-in voting was prohibited. Thereafter, the District Court, 737 F.Supp. 582, Harold M. Fong, J., granted injunctive relief,

and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 937 F.2d 415, reversed, and voter petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court,

Justice White, held that Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting did not unreasonably infringe upon its citizens' rights under First and Fourteenth

Amendments.

Court of Appeals affirmed.

Justice Kennedy filed dissenting opinion, in which Justices Blackmun and Stevens joined.

Syllabus [FN*]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Condonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Condonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Condonhttp://www.answers.com/topic/januaryhttp://www.answers.com/topic/white-primarieshttp://www.answers.com/topic/uncontestedhttp://www.answers.com/topic/purposefulhttp://www.answers.com/topic/purposefulhttp://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-xv-to-the-u-s-constitutionhttp://www.answers.com/topic/hugo-blackhttp://www.answers.com/topic/felix-frankfurterhttp://www.answers.com/topic/tom-c-clarkhttp://www.answers.com/topic/sherman-mintonhttp://www.answers.com/topic/constitutionalhttp://www.answers.com/topic/voting-rights-act-of-1965-1http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=350&SerialNum=1988065102&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1989112257&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1989112257&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=345&SerialNum=1990079953&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=350&SerialNum=1991116772&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://briefit.westlaw.com/briefit/default.aspx?bhcp=1&cite=504+U%2ES%2E+428&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0#FN;F001*http://briefit.westlaw.com/briefit/default.aspx?bhcp=1&cite=504+U%2ES%2E+428&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0#FN;F001*http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=350&SerialNum=1991116772&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=345&SerialNum=1990079953&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1989112257&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1989112257&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=350&SerialNum=1988065102&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://www.answers.com/topic/voting-rights-act-of-1965-1http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutionalhttp://www.answers.com/topic/sherman-mintonhttp://www.answers.com/topic/tom-c-clarkhttp://www.answers.com/topic/felix-frankfurterhttp://www.answers.com/topic/hugo-blackhttp://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-xv-to-the-u-s-constitutionhttp://www.answers.com/topic/purposefulhttp://www.answers.com/topic/uncontestedhttp://www.answers.com/topic/white-primarieshttp://www.answers.com/topic/januaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Condon

8/2/2019 449 Outline

7/26


7

FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the

reader. SeeUnited States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Petitioner, a registered Honolulu voter, filed suit against respondent state officials, claiming that Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting violated

his rights of expression and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court ultimately granted his motion forsummary judgment and injunctive relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the prohibition, taken as part of the State's

comprehensive election scheme, does not impermissibly burden the right to vote.

Held: Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting does not unreasonably infringe upon its citizens' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Pp. 2062-2068.

(a) Petitioner assumes erroneously that a law that imposes any burden on the right to vote must be subject to strict scrutiny. This Court's cases

have applied a more flexible standard: A court considering a state election law challenge must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted

injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as

justification for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the

plaintiff's rights.Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788-789, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1569-1570, 75 L.Ed.2d 547. Under this standard, a regulation

must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance only when it subjects the voters' rights to "severe" restrictions.

Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289, 112 S.Ct. 698, 705, 116 L.Ed.2d 711. If it imposes only "reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions" upon

those rights, the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify the restrictions.Anderson, supra, 460 U.S., at 788, 103

S.Ct., at 1570. Pp. 2062-2064.

(b) Hawaii's write-in vote prohibition imposes a very limited burden upon voters' rights to associate politically through the vote and to have

candidates of their choice placed on the ballot. Because the State's election laws provide easy access to the primary ballot until the cutoff date for

the filing of nominating petitions, two months before the primary, any burden on the voters' rights is borne only by those who fail to identify their

candidate of choice until shortly before the primary. An interest in making a late rather than an early decision is entitled to little weight. Cf. Storer

v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 736, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1281, 39 L.Ed.2d 714. Pp. 2064-2066.

(c) Hawaii's asserted interests in avoiding the possibility of unrestrained factionalism at the general election and in guarding against "party

raiding" during the primaries are legitimate and are sufficient to outweigh the limited burden that the write-in voting ban imposes upon voters.

Pp. 2066-2067.

(d) Indeed, the foregoing analysis leads to the conclusion that where, as here, a State's ballot access laws pass constitutional muster as imposing

only reasonable burdens on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, a write-in voting prohibition will be presumptively valid, since any burden

on the right to vote for the candidate of one's choice will be light and normally will be counterbalanced by the very state interests supporting the

ballot access scheme. Pp. 2067-2068.

937 F.2d 415 (CA9 1991), affirmed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined.

KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 2068.

Not every law that imposes any burden upon right to vote must be subject to strict scrutiny; instead, rigorousness of inquiry into propriety of state

election law depends upon extent to which challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1,

14.

When state election law subjects First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to "severe" restriction, regulation must be narrowly drawn to advance

state interest of compelling importance, but when state election law imposes only "reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions" upon First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights, state's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify restrictions. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14.

Hawaii's ban on write-in voting imposed only limited burden on voters' rights to make free choices and to associate politically through the vote

and, therefore, had only to further important regulatory interests to be upheld, in light of adequate ballot access afforded under Hawaii's election

code. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14; HRSA 11-61, 11-62, 12-2.5 to 12-7, 12-31.

Hawaii's interests in avoiding possibility of unrestrained factionalism at general election and in guarding against "party raiding" outweighed

voter's limited interest in waiting until 11th hour to choose his preferred candidate and provided adequate justification for Hawaii's ban on write-

in voting at general election.

When state's ballot access laws pass constitutional muster as imposing only reasonable burdens on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights,

prohibition against write-in voting will be presumptively valid, since any burden on right to vote for candidate of one's choice will be light and

normally will be counterbalanced by very state interests supporting ballot access scheme. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14.

While no right is more precious in free country than that of having voice in election of those who make laws under which, as good citizens, we

must live, right to vote is right to participate in electoral process that is necessarily structured to maintain integrity of democratic system.
http://briefit.westlaw.com/briefit/default.aspx?bhcp=1&cite=504+U%2ES%2E+428&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0#FN;B001*http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1906101604&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=287&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1906101604&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=287&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1906101604&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=287&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1569&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1569&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1569&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1992022716&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=705&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1992022716&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=705&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1570&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1570&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1570&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1570&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1974127154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1281&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1974127154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1281&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1974127154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1281&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1974127154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1281&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=350&SerialNum=1991116772&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS11%2D61&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS11%2D62&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS12%2D2%2E5&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS12%2D7&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS12%2D31&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS12%2D31&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS12%2D7&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS12%2D2%2E5&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS11%2D62&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000522&DocName=HISTS11%2D61&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=350&SerialNum=1991116772&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1974127154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1281&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1974127154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1281&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1570&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1570&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1992022716&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=705&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1983118154&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=1569&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1906101604&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=287&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://briefit.westlaw.com/briefit/default.aspx?bhcp=1&cite=504+U%2ES%2E+428&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0#FN;B001*

8/2/2019 449 Outline

8/26


8

Bullock v. Carter

Appellees who sought to become candidates for local office in the Texas Democratic primary election challenged in the District Court the validity

of the Texas statutory scheme which, without write-in or other alternative provisions, requires payment of fees ranging as high as $8,900.

Appellees claimed that they were unable to pay the required fees, and were therefore barred from running. Under the Texas statute, the party

committee estimates the total cost of the primary and apportions it among candidates according to its judgment of what is "just and equitable," inlight of "the importance, emolument, and term of office." The fees for local candidates tend appreciably to exceed those for state-wide candidates.

Following a hearing, the District Court declared the fee system invalid and enjoined its enforcement. Appellants contend that the filing fees are

necessary both to regulate the primary ballot and to finance elections.

Held: The Texas primary election filing fee system contravenes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 405 U. S. 140-

149.

(a) Since the Texas statute imposes filing fees of such magnitude that numerous qualified candidates are precluded from filing, it falls with

unequal weight on candidates and voters according to their ability to pay the fees, and therefore it must be "closely scrutinized" and can be

sustained only if it is reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate state objective, and not merely because it has some rational basis. Pp. 405

U. S. 140-144.

(b) Although a State has an interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot and eliminating those who are spurious, it cannot attain

these objectives by arbitrary means such as those called for by the Texas statute, which eliminates legitimate potential candidates, like those

involved here, who cannot afford the filing fees. Pp. 405 U. S. 144-147.

(c) The apportionment of costs among candidates is not the only means available to finance primary elections, and the State can identify certain

bodies as political parties entitled to sponsorship if the State itself finances the primaries, as it does general

Page 405 U. S. 135

elections, both of which are important parts of the democratic process. Pp. 405 U. S. 147-149.

321 F.Supp. 1358, affirmed.

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members joined except POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., who took no part in the

consideration or decision of the case.

Nader v. Schaffer


Action was brought by registered voters to redress alleged deprivation, under color of state law, of certain voting and associational rights

guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. On cross motions for summary judgment and to dismiss, the Three-Judge District Court, Robert P.

Anderson, Circuit Judge, held that Connecticut statute providing that no person may vote in party primary unless he is on last completed

enrollment list of such party is reasonably related to accomplishment of legitimate state goals, and that Connecticut election laws governingprimaries are not in violation of United States Constitution.

Defendants' motion to dismiss granted and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied.

Where complaint sought order restraining enforcement of Connecticut statute which provides that no person may vote in party primary unless he

is on last completed enrollment list of such party on grounds of its alleged unconstitutionality, and constitutional question raised was not

"insubstantial," three-judge court was convened. 28 U.S.C.A. 2281.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#140http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#140http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#140http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#144http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#147http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2281&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2281&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#147http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#144http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#140http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#140http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/134/case.html#140

8/2/2019 449 Outline

9/26


9

Constitutional standards must be satisfied in primary as well as in general elections.

Secretary of State's actions in enforcing Connecticut statute which provides that no person may vote in party primary unless he is on last

completed enrollment list of such party were taken under color of state law for purposes of federal civil rights statute providing redress for

deprivation of rights under color of state law. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.

Any dominant position enjoyed by Democratic and Republican parties in Connecticut was not result of improper support or discrimination intheir favor by Connecticut but rather because parties, over period of time, had been successful in attracting bulk of electorate so that they now had

substantial followings.

Improper state support for Democratic and Republican parties could not be inferred from fact that their primary elections were closely regulated

by statute.

In action by registered voters challenging Connecticut statute which provides that no person may vote in party primary unless he is on last

completed enrollment list of such party, voters, in order to support claim that public nature of enrollment violated their rights to privacy and of

association by potentially subjecting them to harassment because of required affiliation with a party, had to make detailed factual showing of

actual threats or incidents of harassment and could not merely raise spectre of harassment. C.G.S.A. 9- 56, 9-59, 9-431.

Constitutionally protected associational rights of members of political party, which is voluntary association instituted for political purposes with

goal of effectuating will of its members, are vitally essential to candidate selection process.

Attempt to interfere with political party's ability to maintain itself is simultaneously interference with associational rights of its members.

State has legitimate interest in protecting political party members' associational rights by legislating to protect party from intrusion by those with

adverse political principles.

State has legitimate interest in protecting overall integrity of historic electoral process, which interest includes preserving parties as viable and

identifiable interest groups and insuring that results of primary elections, in a broad sense, accurately reflect voting of party members.

In order to protect party members from intrusion by those with adverse political principles and to preserve integrity of electoral process, state

legitimately may condition one's participation in party's nominating process on some showing of loyalty to that party.

Connecticut could condition participation in primary election upon party loyalty oath that was not particularly burdensome but required minimal

demonstration by voter that he had some "commitment" to party in primary of which he wished to participate and that did not prevent elector in

subsequent general election from voting for any party's candidate or for independent candidate as he chose. C.G.S.A. 9-56, 9-431.

Although criminal sanctions might be effective to punish ringleaders of any primary election raiding episode, since it would be very difficult to

detect and punish all individual voters who engaged in proscribed conduct, and since, unless deterrent aspect of criminal law were totally

effective, such a law would apply only after damage had been done to electoral process, Connecticut would not be required to utilize criminal

sanctions against perpetrators of raiding and other distorting and deceptive conduct rather than requiring persons to enroll in party in order to vote

in party primary. C.G.S.A. 9- 431.

Since state cannot conduct test on each voter to determine his political ideas before allowing him to vote in primary election, enrollment

requirements of Connecticut statute providing that no person may vote in party primary unless he is on last completed enrollment list of such

party constitutes constitutionally acceptable surrogate. C.G.S.A. 9-431.

In view of fact that registered voters who were not enrolled in political party and thus could not vote in party primaries were not interested in

primary elections in crucial, distinguishing way that party members were interested, Connecticut statute which provides that no person may vote

in party primary unless he is on last completed enrollment list of such party did not deprive voters of equal protection by denying them right to

participate in election in which they were interested and by which they were affected to same extent as those persons who could vote in primary

elections. C.G.S.A. 9-431; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

State action or policy must cause more than minimal infringement of First Amendment rights before state is called upon to provide "compelling

interest" justification. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.

State statute must impose more than minimal infringement on rights to vote and of association before strict judicial review of statute is warranted.

Connecticut statute providing that no person may vote in party primary unless he is on last completed enrollment list of such party is reasonably

related to accomplishment of legitimate state goals of protecting associational rights of political party members and protecting overall integrity of

historic electoral process and thus did not violate voting and associational rights of registered voters who were not enrolled party members.
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D56&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D59&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D56&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D56&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D59&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D56&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0

8/2/2019 449 Outline

10/26


10

C.G.S.A. 9-20, 9-21, 9-56, 9-59, 9-431; 42 U.S.C.A. 1983; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.

Connecticut election laws which govern primaries, which provide that no person may vote in party primary unless he is on last completed

enrollment list of such party and which are not invidiously discriminatory but apply to all alike, are not in violation of United States Constitution

but provide for legitimate goals through constitutionally permissible means. C.G.S.A. 9-431.

Federal courts should not use power to change law in suit raising federal constitutional question for purpose of exercising some amorphous,general supervision of operations of government; rather, such power should be used only to redress violation of basic human rights to which

federal constitutional protections have been extended or to correct governmental action which otherwise conflicts with express provisions of

Constitution.

Duke v. Massey


Candidate for Republican nomination for President and voters brought action against Georgia's Secretary of State and Georgia Republican Party

candidate selection committee challenging constitutionality of his exclusion from primary ballot. Action was dismissed by the District Court, and

candidate and voters appealed. The Court of Appeals, 5 F.3d 1399, vacated and remanded. On remand, parties filed motions for summary

judgment, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, No. 1:92-CV-116- RCF, Richard C. Freeman, Senior District

Judge, 884 F.Supp. 511, denied plaintiffs' motion and granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals,

Hatchett, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) decision of party's candidate selection committee to exclude candidate from ballot constituted state action

potentially allowing recovery under federal civil rights statute, but (2) exclusion did not violate First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of

candidate and his supporters.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz


Political party sought writ of mandamus after the 345th District Court, Travis County, John K. Dietz, J., issued temporary injunction requiring

party to provide convention booth and program advertisement space to group supporting equal civil rights for gay and lesbian individuals. After

granting stay, 924 S.W.2d 932, the Supreme Court, Abbott, J., held that: (1) Texas Bill of Rights generally applies only against the government;

(2) actions of political party in denying booth and program advertising space at state convention to group attempting to change party's internal

platform was not "state action" subject to bill of rights; and (3) even if group could prevail on some contract claims, injunction gave group more

relief than it was entitled to.Dismissed as moot.

Spector, J., concurred and filed an opinion.

Mandamus is extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited circumstances, and is appropriate only to correct clear abuse of discretion or

violation of duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law.

When interpreting state Constitution, Supreme Court relies heavily on its literal text and gives effect to its plain language; it also may consider

such things as purpose of provision, historical context in which it was written, collective intent of framers and people who adopted it, Court's

prior decisions, interpretations of analogous constitutional provisions by other jurisdictions, and constitutional theory.

Texas Bill of Rights generally applies only against the government. Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, 29.

Constitution is compact between government and the people in which the people delegate powers to government and in which powers of

government are prescribed.

Bills of rights are often included as part of Constitution and are intended to protect citizens from governmental transgressions of certain

fundamental rights, but are not designed to protect from the invasion of such rights by individuals. Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, 29.

Generally, state action subject to bill of rights is only present for otherwise private conduct when conduct can be fairly attributed to government.

Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, 29.

Although in some cases disputed facts regarding extent of government's involvement in challenged action must be resolved by trier of fact,

ultimate determination of whether facts are sufficient to constitute state action subject to bill of rights is a question of law. Vernon's Ann.Texas
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D20&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D21&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D56&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D59&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=506&SerialNum=1993197234&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=345&SerialNum=1995112914&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=713&SerialNum=1996144866&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000301&DocName=TXCNART1S29&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000301&DocName=TXCNART1S29&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000301&DocName=TXCNART1S29&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000301&DocName=TXCNART1S29&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000301&DocName=TXCNART1S29&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000301&DocName=TXCNART1S29&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000301&DocName=TXCNART1S29&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000301&DocName=TXCNART1S29&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=713&SerialNum=1996144866&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=345&SerialNum=1995112914&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=506&SerialNum=1993197234&FindType=Y&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D431&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D59&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocName=CTSTS9%2D56&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&rs=BREF8.11&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000264&DocNam

449 Outline

Documents

Transcript of 449 Outline