146 U.S. 1 (1892), 1170, McPherson v. Blacker

Docket Nº:No. 1170
Citation:146 U.S. 1, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869
Party Name:McPherson v. Blacker
Case Date:October 17, 1892
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

146 U.S. 1 (1892)

13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869

McPherson

v.

Blacker

No. 1170

United States Supreme Court

October 17, 1892

Argued Oct. 11, 1892

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Syllabus

The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.

Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.

If the terms of the clause left the question of power in doubt, contemporaneous and continuous subsequent practical construction has determined the question as above stated.

The second clause of Article II of the Constitution was not amended by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they do not limit the power of appointment to the particular manner pursued at the time of the adoption of these amendments or secure to every male inhabitant of a state, being a citizen of the United States, the right from the time of his majority to vote for presidential electors.

A state law fixing a date for the meeting of electors differing from that prescribed by the act of Congress is not thereby wholly invalidated, but the date may be rejected and the law stand.

Page 2

William McPherson, Jr., Jay A. Hubbell, J. Henry Carstens, Charles E. Hiscock, Otto Ihling, Philip T. Colgrove, Conrad G. Swensburg, Henry A. Haigh, James H. White, Fred. Slocum, Justus S. Stearns, John Millen, Julius T. Hannah, and J. H. Comstock filed their petition and affidavits in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan on May 2, 1892, as nominees for presidential electors, [13 S.Ct. 4] against Robert R. Blacker, Secretary of State of Michigan, praying that the court declare the Act of the legislature approved May 1, 1891, Act No. 50, Public Acts of Michigan of 1891, entitled

An act to provide for the election of electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, and to repeal all other acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith,

void and of no effect, and that a writ of mandamus be directed to be issued to the said Secretary of State commanding him to cause to be delivered to the sheriff of each county in the state, between the first of July and the first of September, 1892,

a notice in writing that at the next general election in this state, to be held on Tuesday, the 8th day of November, 1892, there will be chosen (among other officers to be named in said notice) as many electors of President and Vice-President of the United States as this state may be entitled to elect senators and representatives in the Congress.

The statute of Michigan (Howell's Ann.Stats. of Michigan, 133, c. 9) provided:

The secretary of the state shall, between the first day of July and the first day of September preceding a general election, direct and cause to be delivered to the sheriff of each county in this state a notice in writing that at the next general election, there will be chosen as many of the following officers as are to be elected at such general election, viz.: a governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor general, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, commissioner of state land office, members of the state board of education, electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, and a representative in Congress for the district to which each of such counties shall belong.

A rule to show cause having been issued, the respondent, as

Page 3

Secretary of State, answered the petition, and denied that he had refused to give the notice thus required, but he said

that it has always been the custom in the office of the secretary of state, in giving notices under said section 147, to state in the notice the number of electors that should be printed on the ticket in each voting precinct in each county in this state, and following such custom with reference to such notice, it is the intention of this respondent in giving notice under section 147 to state in said notice that there will be elected one presidential elector at large and one district presidential elector and two alternate presidential electors, one for the elector at large and one for the district presidential elector, in each voting precinct, so that the election may be held under and in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of the State of Michigan of 1891.

By an amended answer, the respondent claimed the same benefit as if he had demurred.

Relators relied in their petition upon various grounds as invalidating Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1891, and, among them, that the act was void because in conflict with clause two of section one of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, and with the Fourteenth Amendment to that instrument, and also in some of its provisions in conflict with the Act of Congress of February 3, 1887, entitled

An act to fix the day for the meeting of the electors of President and Vice-President and to provide for and regulate the counting of the votes for President and Vice-President, and the decision of questions arising thereon.

The Supreme Court of Michigan unanimously held that none of the objections urged against the validity of the act were tenable; that it did not conflict with clause two of section one of Article II of the Constitution, or with the Fourteenth Amendment thereof, and that the law was only inoperative so far as in conflict with the law of Congress in a matter in reference to which Congress had the right to legislate. The opinion of the court will be found reported, in advance of the official series, in 52 N.W. 469.

Judgment was given, June 17, 1892, denying the writ of

Page 4

mandamus, whereupon a writ of error was allowed to this Court.

The October term, 1892, commenced on Monday, October 10, and on Tuesday, October 11, the first day upon which the application could be made, a motion to advance the case was submitted by counsel, granted at once in view of the exigency disclosed upon the face of the papers, and the cause heard that day. The attention of the court having been called to other provisions of the election laws of Michigan than those supposed to be immediately involved (Act No. 190, Public Acts of Michigan 1891, pp. 258, 263), the Chief Justice, on Monday, October 17, announced the conclusions of the court and directed the entry of judgment affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan, and ordering the mandate to issue at once, it being stated that this was done because immediate action under the state statutes was apparently required and might be affected by delay, but it was added that the court would thereafter file an opinion stating fully the grounds of the decision.

Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of 1891 of Michigan is as follows:

An act to provide for the election of electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, and to repeal all other acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith.

Section 1. The people of the State of Michigan enact that at the general election next preceding the choice of President and Vice-President of the United States, there shall be elected as many electors of President and Vice-President as this state may be entitled to elect of senators and representatives in Congress in the following manner, that is to say, there shall be elected by the electors of the districts hereinafter defined one elector of President and Vice-President of the United States in each district, who shall be known and designated on the ballot, respectively, as "eastern [13 S.Ct. 5] district elector of President and Vice-President of the United States at large," and "western district elector of President and Vice-President of the United States at large." There shall also be elected, in like manner, two alternate electors of President and

Page 5

Vice-President, who shall be known and designated on the ballot as "eastern district alternate elector of President and Vice-President of the United States at large" and "western district alternate elector of President and Vice-President of the United States at large," for which purpose the first, second, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth congressional districts shall compose one district, to be known as the "Eastern Electoral District," and the third, fourth, fifth, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth congressional districts shall compose the other district, to be known as the "Western Electoral District." There shall also be elected, by the electors in each congressional district into which the state is or shall be divided, one electors of President and Vice-President, and one alternate elector of President and Vice-President, the ballots for which shall designate the number of the congressional district and the persons to be voted for therein, as "district elector" and "alternate district elector" of President and Vice-President of the United States, respectively.

SEC. 2. The counting, canvassing, and certifying of the votes cast for said electors at large and their alternates, and said district electors and their alternates, shall be done as near as may be in the same manner as is now provided by law for the election of electors or President and Vice-President of the United States.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of State shall prepare three lists of the names of the electors and the alternate electors, procure thereto the signature of the governor, affix...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP