Bell v. Hill
Decision Date | 20 July 1934 |
Docket Number | Motion No. 11520. |
Citation | 74 S.W.2d 113 |
Parties | BELL et al. v. HILL, County Clerk, et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
W. G. Bell and E. L. Jones, Jr., qualified voters and citizens of Jefferson county, presented to us on July 19, 1934, a motion for leave to file a petition for mandamus and other relief against the Governor, the Attorney General, the State Democratic Executive Committee and its members, the members of the Jefferson County Democratic Executive Committee, and the various election officers of Jefferson county. The members of the respondent committees are named, and the list of respondents embraces approximately 200 names.
The motion for leave to file is accompanied by the petition for mandamus, and an elaborate and able argument on the law questions involved. The petition shows that the relators are negroes, and its object is to invoke the jurisdiction of this court requiring the respondents to permit the relators to vote in the Democratic primaries of this state; the first of which is to be held July 28, 1934.
The relators allege that the Democratic Party is an organized political party, and is the predominant one in the state of Texas. They also say:
The petition states in substance, in part, that the respondents are denying, or will deny, the relators the right to vote, because of a resolution passed by the State Convention of the Democratic Party in Texas on May 24, 1932, which reads: "Be It Resolved, that all white citizens of the State who are qualified to vote under the Constitution and laws of Texas shall be eligible for membership in the party, and as such eligible for participation in the primaries."
This resolution was passed by the Democratic Convention which met at Houston for the purpose of electing delegates to the National Convention of the Democratic Party. It is alleged that the convention met by virtue of article 3167, R. S., which, in so far as a State Convention is concerned, provides:
In order that we may understand the questions involved in this case, it is essential that we clearly comprehend the nature of a political party, such as the Democratic Party. First of all, it is a voluntary association; an association formed of the free will and unrestrained choice of those who compose it. No man is compelled by law to become a member of a political party; or, after having become such, to remain a member. He may join such a party for whatever reason seems good to him, and may quit the party for any cause, good, bad, or indifferent, or without cause. A political party is the creation of free men, acting according to their own wisdom, and in no sense whatever the creation of any department of the government. Political parties have existed in this country under some form under all systems of government when the people were accorded any political rights. It may be said that they originated in the United States with the adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1787. 49 Corpus Juris, p. 1075, § 15; Waples v. Marrast, 108 Tex. 5, 184 S. W. 180, 183, L. R. A. 1917A, 253; Koy v. Schneider, 110 Tex. 369, 376, 218 S. W. 479, 221 S. W. 880; Davis v. Hambrick, 109 Ky. 276, 58 S. W. 779; Schafer v. Whipple, 26 Colo. 1, 55 P. 1081; People v. Emmerson, 333 Ill. 606, 165 N. E. 217, 62 A. L. R. 912. Corpus Juris in the section cited has collated various definitions to form its text, and plainly sustains the conclusion stated by us, that a political party is a voluntary organization or association, the outgrowth of free, individual action, and not a permissive organization under some statute. Corpus Juris declares: (Italics ours.)
In the case of Waples v. Marrast, supra, this court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Phillips, quoted with approval by Associate Justice Greenwood in Koy v. Schneider, cited above, declared: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Allwright
...Art. 3101. The Democratic Party of Texas is held by the Supreme Court of that state to be a 'voluntary association,' Bell v. Hill, 123 Tex. 531, 534, 74 S.W.2d 113, protected by Section 27 of the Bill of Rights, Art. 1, Constitution of Texas, from interference by the state except 'In the in......
-
Zaatari v. City of Austin
...assembly sections of Texas Constitution because "anything done in violation of [Texas's bill of rights] is void"); Bell v. Hill , 123 Tex. 531, 74 S.W.2d 113, 119–20 (1934) (recognizing that citizens' right to form political associations is protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendme......
-
Seamon v. Upham
...on deference accorded to two Texas Supreme Court decisions, Love v. Wilcox, 119 Tex. 256, 28 S.W.2d 515 (1930), and Bell v. Hill, 123 Tex. 531, 74 S.W.2d 113 (1934). The combined weight of these two state decisions was that, under the Constitution of the State of Texas, political parties ar......
-
Bickham v. Dall. Cnty.
...to diminish its effect, most often on account of race, were held to be beyond the courts' jurisdiction. See Bell v. Hill , 123 Tex. 531, 74 S.W.2d 113, 122 (1934) ; City of Honey Springs v. Templeton , 194 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.). That jurisdictional ......