Baskin v. Brown, No. 5861.
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | PARKER, , and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit |
| Citation | 174 F.2d 391 |
| Docket Number | No. 5861. |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1949 |
| Parties | BASKIN et al. v. BROWN. |
174 F.2d 391 (1949)
BASKIN et al.
v.
BROWN.
No. 5861.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 8, 1949.
Decided May 17, 1949.
Robert McC. Figg, Jr., Charleston, S. C. (Eugene S. Blease, Newberry S. C., Sidney S. Tison, Bennettsville, S. C., and George Warren, Hampton, S. C., on the brief), for appellants.
Thurgood Marshall, New York City (Harold R. Boulware, Columbia, S. C., Robert L. Carter and Constance Baker Motley, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PARKER, Chief Judge.
This appeal presents another chapter in the effort to exclude Negro citizens from any effective participation in elections in South Carolina, where the vote in the Democratic Primary controls, to all practical intents and purposes, the choice in general elections. Prior to the decision in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987, 151 A.L.R. 1110, Negroes were excluded from voting in the Democratic Primary in South Carolina, which was conducted pursuant to state law. Following the decision in that case, which upheld the right of Negroes to vote in primary elections, the Governor of South Carolina convened the Legislature in special session and recommended that all primary laws of the state be repealed, with the avowed purpose of preventing Negroes from participating in the Democratic primaries. Pursuant to this recommendation the primary laws were repealed and the Democratic primaries were conducted thereafter under rules prescribed by the Democratic Party of South Carolina but in the same manner and in such way as to produce the same results as when conducted under state law. In Elmore v. Rice, D.C., 72 F.Supp. 516, those conducting these primary elections were enjoined from denying to Negro citizens the right to vote therein; and this was affirmed by us on appeal in Rice v. Elmore, 4 Cir., 165 F.2d 387, where we gave the most careful consideration to the questions involved. Certiorari to review our decision was denied by the Supreme Court. 333 U.S. 875, 68 S.Ct. 905.
Following the denial of certiorari in Rice v. Elmore, the Democratic Party of South Carolina adopted rules under which control of the primaries in that state was vested in clubs to which Negroes were not admitted to membership, and voting in the primaries was conditioned upon the voter's taking an oath that he believed in social and educational separation of the races and was "opposed to the proposed Federal so-called F. E. P. C. law." Negroes desiring to vote in the primaries were required, in addition, to present general election certificates, a requirement not exacted of white voters.
Upon adoption of the rules mentioned, this suit was instituted against officials of the Democratic Party of South Carolina to protect the right of Negro citizens to participate in the Democratic primaries; and the right with respect to the approaching primary was protected by an interlocutory injunction (Brown v. Baskin, D. C., 78 F.Supp. 933) which was made permanent on final hearing. Brown v. Baskin, D.C., 80 F.Supp. 1017. Appeal has been taken from this final decree, which enjoins defendants from refusing to enroll Negroes as members of Democratic Clubs or denying them full participation in the Democratic Party on account of race or color, from enforcing the rule requiring Negro electors to present election certificates as a prerequisite to voting unless the same requirement is applied to other persons, and from requiring the taking of the oath to which reference has been made. The appeal before us asks that we reconsider our
We see no reason to modify our holding in Rice v. Elmore. On the contrary, we are convinced, after further consideration, that the decision in that case was entirely correct; and little need be added to our opinion there to dispose of every question that is here presented. The gist of that decision was that primaries, under modern conditions, are a part of the election machinery of the state, and that a state cannot, by allowing a political party to take over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...and proceeds with an assertion that the legislative purpose may be the subject of inquiry, giving as authority Baskin v. Brown, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 391, 392, 393, and Davis v. Schnell, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 872, 878-880, affirmed by per curiam decision in 336 U.S. 933, 69 S.Ct. 749, 93 L.Ed. 1093, ......
-
U.S. v. Jackson, No. 78-1768
..."A judge cannot be disqualified merely because he believes in upholding the law, even though he says so with vehemence." Baskin v. Brown, 174 F.2d 391, 394 (4th Cir. 21 Apart from the trial judge's rulings on cross-examination, Jackson claims the following indicates the trial court's "bias"......
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Local U. 542, Int. U. of Op. Eng., Civ. A. No. 71-2698.
...Of course, it goes without saying that "a judge cannot be disqualified merely because he believes in upholding the law." Baskin v. Brown, 174 F.2d 391, 394 (4th Cir. 1949). If the facts pleaded do not warrant my disqualification, I am not only permitted to continue to preside over the case,......
-
Mulkey v. Reitman, L.A. 28360
...v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 52 S.Ct. 484, 76 L.Ed. 984; Baskin v. Brown, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 391; Rice v. Elmore, 4 Cir., 165 F.2d 387.) In those cases private action infringing the right to vote was held to be the equivalent of state acti......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...and proceeds with an assertion that the legislative purpose may be the subject of inquiry, giving as authority Baskin v. Brown, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 391, 392, 393, and Davis v. Schnell, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 872, 878-880, affirmed by per curiam decision in 336 U.S. 933, 69 S.Ct. 749, 93 L.Ed. 1093, ......
-
U.S. v. Jackson, No. 78-1768
..."A judge cannot be disqualified merely because he believes in upholding the law, even though he says so with vehemence." Baskin v. Brown, 174 F.2d 391, 394 (4th Cir. 21 Apart from the trial judge's rulings on cross-examination, Jackson claims the following indicates the trial court's "bias"......
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Local U. 542, Int. U. of Op. Eng., Civ. A. No. 71-2698.
...Of course, it goes without saying that "a judge cannot be disqualified merely because he believes in upholding the law." Baskin v. Brown, 174 F.2d 391, 394 (4th Cir. 1949). If the facts pleaded do not warrant my disqualification, I am not only permitted to continue to preside over the case,......
-
Mulkey v. Reitman, L.A. 28360
...v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 52 S.Ct. 484, 76 L.Ed. 984; Baskin v. Brown, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 391; Rice v. Elmore, 4 Cir., 165 F.2d 387.) In those cases private action infringing the right to vote was held to be the equivalent of state acti......