McPherson v. Blacker
| Decision Date | 17 October 1892 |
| Docket Number | No. 1170.,1170. |
| Parties | McPHERSON v. BLACKER. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.
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.
WILLIAM McPherson, Jr., Jay A. Hubbell, J. Henry Carstens, Charles E. Hiscock, Otto Ihling, Philip T. Colgrove, Conrad G. Swensburg, Henry A. Haigh, James II. White, Fred. Slocum, Justus S. Stearns, John Millen, Julius T. Hannah, and J. II. Comstock filed their petition and affidavits in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, on May 2, 1892, as nominees for presidential electors, 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 of the 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 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 the 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 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 Northwestern Rep. 469.
Judgment was given, June 17, 1892, denying the writ of 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, 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roundtree
...inquiry is still directed toward discovering what the words were understood to convey when written. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892) ; Heller, 554 U.S. at 592, 128 S.Ct. 2783. In other words, the original public meaning controls, even when we have to......
-
Pherson v. Blacker
... 146 U.S. 1 ... 13 S.Ct. 3 ... 36 L.Ed. 869 ... McPHERSON et al ... BLACKER, Secretary of State ... No. 1,170 ... October 17, 1892. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER: ... William McPherson, Jr., Jay A. Hubbell, J. Henry Carstens, Charles E. Hiscock, Otto Ihling, Philip T. Colgrove, Conrad G ... ...
-
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions
...of its power to another entity." Muller, supra note 29, at 718.38. See infra Section III.a.39. See infra Sections III.b-III.d. 40. 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892) ("[F]rom the formation of the government until now the practical construction of the [Presidential Electoral Clause] has conceded plenary ......
-
The Road to Bush v. Gore:1 the History of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion
...See id.* at 897. 302. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 121 S. Ct. 471, 472-73 (2000). 303. See id.* at 474. 304. See id.* 305. 146 U.S. 1 (1892). 306. See id*. 307. 309 U.S. 551 (1940). 308. See Bush*, 121 S. Ct. at 475. 309. Id*. 310. Id*. 311. See* Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. 512 (2......
-
Constitutional Text, Founding Era History, and the Independent-state-legislature Theory
...3. See, e.g., Amar & Amar, supra note 2, at 14-36 (discussing, among other things, the Supreme Court's ruling in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)); Shapiro, supra note 2, at 155 ("[T]he pre-2000 history demonstrates that from the Founding, Congress, drafters of state constitutions, s......
-
Minority Rights and the Electoral College: What Minority, Whose Rights?
...generational shift, there is mixed evidence at best of a narrowing or changing of racial attitudes, especially among younger Whites). 118. 146 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1892).119. Id. at 25.120. See id. at 40 ("If presidential electors are appointed by the legislatures, no discrimination is made; if t......