What was smith v allwright

In Smith v. Allwright , eight justices on a Supreme Court with several new members overturned the Grovey decision. The majority concluded that several state laws made the Texas primary more than just a function of a private organization. Instead, these laws made it an integral component of the electoral process. As a consequence, the court ruled, it was unconstitutional to prohibit African Americans from voting in the Democratic primary, including votes for party officials.

Smith v. Allwright did not prevent other attempts to disenfranchise African Americans. But it effectively ended the white primary in Texas, a major step along the path to securing equal voting rights. You are currently viewing a legacy feature of the Texas Politics Project website. Please visit the expanded Texas Politics Project website to learn more about our updated webtext and to find additional educational resources.

The Texas Politics Project Smith vs. Allwright: white primaries. Supreme Court found that U. The right to vote in a primary for the nomination of candidates without discrimination by the state, like the right to vote in a general election, was secured by the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that because the primary procedure was related to having a nominee or platform included on the general ballot, the primary elections were conducted by the party under state statutory authority, and were subject to the constitutional provisions that prevented denial of the right to vote on based on race.

Law School Case Brief Smith v. The exclusion of Negroes from the primaries by action of the State was held invalid under that Amendment. The fusing by the Classic case of the primary and general elections into a single instrumentality for choice of officers has a definite bearing on the permissibility under the Constitution of excluding Negroes from primaries. This is not to say that the Classic case cuts directly into the rationale of Grovey v. This latter case was not mentioned in the opinion.

Classic bears upon Grovey v. Townsend not because exclusion of Negroes from primaries is any more or less state action by reason of the unitary character of the electoral process, but because the recognition of the place of the primary in the electoral scheme makes clear that state delegation to a party of the power to fix the qualifications of primary elections is delegation of a state function that may make the party's action the action of the state.

When Grovey v. Townsend was written, the Court looked upon the denial of a vote in a primary as a. As the Louisiana statutes for holding primaries are similar to those of Texas, our ruling in Classic as to the unitary character of the electoral process calls for a reexamination as to whether or not the exclusion of Negroes from a Texas party primary was state action.

The statutes of Texas relating to primaries and the resolution of the Democratic party of Texas extending the privileges of membership to white citizens only are the same in substance and effect today as they were when Grovey v. Townsend was decided by a unanimous Court. The question as to whether the exclusionary action of the party was the action of the State persists as the determinative factor.

In again entering upon consideration of the inference to be drawn as to state action from a substantially similar factual situation, it should be noted that Grovey v. Townsend upheld exclusion of Negroes from primaries through the denial of party membership by a party convention. A few years before, this Court refused approval of exclusion by the State Executive Committee of the party. A different result was reached on the theory that the Committee action was state authorized, and the Convention action was unfettered by statutory control.

Such a variation in the result from so slight a change in form influences us to consider anew the legal validity of the distinction which has resulted in barring Negroes from participating in the nominations of candidates of the Democratic party in Texas. Other precedents of this Court forbid the abridgement of the right to vote. United States v. Reese, 92 U. Delaware, U. Anderson, U. Wilson, U. It may now be taken as a postulate that the right to vote in such a primary for the nomination of candidates without discrimination by the State, like the right to vote.

By the terms of the Fifteenth Amendment, that right may not be abridged by any state on account of race. Under our Constitution, the great privilege of the ballot may not be denied a man by the State because of his color.

We are thus brought to an examination of the qualifications for Democratic primary electors in Texas, to determine whether state action or private action has excluded Negroes from participation. Despite Texas' decision that the exclusion is produced by private or party action, Bell v. Hill, supra, Federal courts must for themselves appraise the facts leading to that conclusion. It is only by the performance of this obligation that a final and uniform interpretation can be given to the Constitution, the "supreme Law of the Land.

Johnson, U. California, U. Meadowmoor Dairies, U. Florida, U. Texas requires electors in a primary to pay a poll tax. Every person who does so pay and who has the qualifications of age and residence is an acceptable voter for the primary.

As appears above in the summary of the statutory provisions set out in note 6 Texas requires by the law the election of the county officers of a party. These compose the county executive committee. The county chairmen so selected are members of the district executive committee and choose the chairman for the district. Precinct primary election officers are named by the county executive committee. Statutes provide for the election by the voters of precinct. The state convention selects the state executive committee.

No convention may place in platform or resolution any demand for specific legislation without endorsement of such legislation by the voters in a primary. Texas thus directs the selection of all party officers. Primary elections are conducted by the party under state statutory authority. The county executive committee selects precinct election officials and the county, district or state executive committees, respectively, canvass the returns.

These party committees or the state convention certify the party's candidates to the appropriate officers for inclusion on the official ballot for the general election.

No name which has not been so certified may appear upon the ballot for the general election as a candidate of a political party. No other name may be printed on the ballot which has not been placed in nomination by qualified voters who must take oath that they did not participate in a primary for the selection of a candidate for the office for which the nomination is made.

The state courts are given exclusive original jurisdiction of contested elections and of mandamus proceedings to compel party officers to perform their statutory duties. We think that this statutory system for the selection of party nominees for inclusion on the general election ballot makes the party which is required to follow these legislative directions an agency of the state in so far as it determines the participants in a primary election.

The party takes its character as a state agency from the duties imposed upon it by state statutes; the duties do not become matters of private law because they are performed by a political party. The plan of the Texas primary follows substantially that of Louisiana, with the exception that, in.

Louisiana, the state pays the cost of the primary, while Texas assesses the cost against candidates. In numerous instances, the Texas statutes fix or limit the fees to be charged. Whether paid directly by the state or through state requirements, it is state action which compels. When primaries become a part of the machinery for choosing officials, state and national, as they have here, the same tests to determine the character of discrimination or abridgement should be applied to the primary as are applied to the general election.

If the state requires a certain electoral procedure, prescribes a general election ballot made up of party nominees so chosen and limits the choice of the electorate in general elections for state offices, practically speaking, to those whose names appear on such a ballot, it endorses, adopts and enforces the discrimination against Negroes, practiced by a party entrusted by Texas law with the determination of the qualifications of participants in the primary.

This is state action within the meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment. Guinn v. The United States is a constitutional democracy. Its organic law grants to all citizens a right to participate in the choice of elected officials without restriction by any state because of race. This grant to the people of the opportunity for choice is not to be nullified by a state through casting its electoral process in a form which permits a private organization to practice racial discrimination in the election.

Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be thus indirectly denied. Lane v. The privilege of membership in a party may be, as this Court said in Grovey v.

But when, as here, that privilege is also the essential qualification for voting in a primary to select nominees for a general election, the state makes the action. In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the desirability of continuity of decision in constitutional questions. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.

This has long been accepted practice, [ Footnote 9 ] and this practice has continued to this day. Townsend, the well established principle of the Fifteenth Amendment, forbidding the abridgement by a state of a citizen's right to vote. Grovey v. Townsend is overruled. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

A declaratory judgment also was sought as to the constitutionality of the denial of the ballot. The judgment entered declared the denial was constitutional. This phase of the case is not considered further, as the decision on the merits determines the legality of the action of the respondents. The extent to which the state controls the primary election machinery appears from the Texas statutes, as follows: Art.

There is, in addition, statutory provision for a party convention: the voters in each precinct choose delegates to a county convention, and the latter chooses delegates to a state convention.

The state convention has authority to choose the state executive committee and its chairman. Candidates for offices to be filled by election are required to be nominated at a primary election if the nominating party cast over , votes at the preceding general election. The date of the primary is fixed at the fourth Saturday in July; a majority is required for nomination, and if no candidate receives a majority, a run-off primary between the two highest standing candidates is held on the fourth Saturday in August.

Polling places may not be within a hundred yards of those used by the opposite party. Each precinct primary is to be conducted by a presiding judge and the assistants he names. These officials are selected by the county executive committee. Absentee voting machinery provided by the state for general elections is also used in primaries. The presiding judges are given legal authority similar to that of judges at general elections.

Compare Art. The county executive committee may decide whether county officers are to be nominated by majority or plurality vote. The state executive committee is given power to fix qualifications of party membership, Art. But cf. Bell v. The form of the ballot is prescribed by Art.

It reads as follows:. This appears, however, to be a morally, rather than a legally, enforceable pledge. See Love v. Wilcox, Tex.