Leser v. Garnett
| Decision Date | 27 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 553,553 |
| Citation | 258 U.S. 130,42 S.Ct. 217,66 L.Ed. 505 |
| Parties | LESER et al. v. GARNETT et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Thomas F. Cadwalader and Wm. L. Marbury, both of Baltimore, Md., for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 131-135 intentionally omitted] Mr. G. M. Brady, of Baltimore, Md., for defendants in error Caroline Roberts and others.
Mr. Alexander Armstrong, of Baltimore, Md., for other defendants in error.
On October 12, 1920, Cecilia Streett Waters and Mary D. Randolph, citizens of Maryland, applied for and were granted registration as qualified voters in Baltimore City. To have their names stricken from the list Oscar Leser and others brought this suit in the court of common pleas. The only ground of disqualification alleged was that the applicants for registration were women, whereas the Constitution of Maryland limits the suffrage to men. Ratification of the proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, now known as the Nineteenth, 41 Stat. 362, had been proclaimed on August 26, 1920, 41 Stat. 1823, pursuant to Revised Statutes, § 205 (Comp. St. § 303). The Legislature of Maryland had refused to ratify it. The petitioners contended, on several grounds, that the amendment had not become part of the federal Constitution. The trial court overruled the contentions and dismissed the petition. Its judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the state (Md.) 114 Atl. 840; and the case comes here on writ of error. That writ must be dismissed; but the petition for a writ of certiorari, also duly filed, is granted. The laws of Maryland authorize such a suit by a qualified voter against the board of registry. Whether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution is the question presented for decision.
The first contention is that the power of amendment conferred by the federal Constitution and sought to be exercise does not extend to this amendment because of its character. The argument is that so great an addition to the electorate, if made without the state's consent, destroys its autonomy as a political body. This amendment is in character and phraseology precisely similar to the Fifteenth. For each the same method of adoption was pursued. One cannot be valid and the other invalid. That the Fifteenth is valid, although rejected by six states, including Maryland, has been recognized and acted on for half a century. See United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 23 L. Ed. 563; Neale v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 567; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, 35 Sup. Ct. 926, 59 L. Ed. 1340, L. R. A. 1916A, 1124; Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368, 35 Sup. Ct. 932, 59 L. Ed. 1349. The suggestion that the Fifteenth was incorporated in the Constitution, not in accordance with law, but practically as a war measure which has been validated by acquiescence, cannot be entertained.
The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is thst by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Idaho v. Freeman
...to proposed amendments particularly Hawke v. Smith, No. 1, 253 U.S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 495, 64 L.Ed. 871 (1920), and Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922). The Court pointed out that standing was granted to the plaintiff in Hawke v. Smith, No. 1, supra, who was suing ......
-
Virginia v. Ferriero
...relief presupposes the existence of a judicially remediable right" (citations omitted)).11 For the same reason, Leser v. Garnett , 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922), does not apply. Leser held that a state's notice of ratification can sometimes be "conclusive" on the Archivist......
-
Jones v. Governor of Fla., No. 20-12003
...in detail only twice—once in a decision upholding the amendment against a challenge to its validity, Leser v. Garnett , 258 U.S. 130, 136, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922), and once in a decision upholding a poll tax that included an exception for nonvoting women, Breedlove v. Suttles , 30......
-
American Federation of Labor v. Eu
...Federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State." (Leser v. Garnett (1922) 258 U.S. 130, 137, 42 S.Ct. 217, 218, 66 L.Ed. 505; see also Trombetta v. Florida (M.D.Fla.1973) 353 F.Supp. 575; Walker v. Dunn (Tenn.1972) 498 S.W.2d 102.) If a......
-
Justice Ginsburg's Cautious Legacy for the Equal Rights Amendment
...took for the transgenerational process of making the Nineteenth Amendment part of the Constitution to succeed. Thomas I. Emerson, a 273. 258 U.S. 130, 133 (1922). 274. U.S. CONST. art. V. 275. See CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT &NETTIE ROGERS SHULER,WOMAN SUFFRAGE AND POLITICS:THE INNER STORY OF THE S......
-
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions
...cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it.").452. 258 U.S. 130 (1922).453. U.S. CONST. amend. XIX.454. Leser, 258 U.S. at 137.455. Id. at 136-37 (discussing the plaintiffs' argument that the constitutions......
-
Gender, Voting Rights, and the Nineteenth Amendment
...(describing those groups of women in the country who were not enfranchised by the Nineteenth Amendment, either de jure or de facto). 6. 258 U.S. 130, 136 (1922). 7. 302 U.S. 277, 283–84 (1937), overruled in part by Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 669 (1966). 8. While the......
-
Table of Cases
...Cir. 2005), 1289 Leslie Miller, Inc. v. State of Arkansas, 352 U.S. 187, 77 S.Ct. 257, 1 L.Ed.2d 231 (1956), 852, 854 Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922), Levitan v. Ashcroft, 281 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2002), 1615 Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 2......