Nixon v. Herndon
| Citation | 47 S.Ct. 446,71 L.Ed. 759,273 U.S. 536 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 117,117 |
| Parties | NIXON v. HERNDON et al |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Knollenberg, of El Paso, Tex., A. B. Spingarn, of New York City, R. J. Channell, of El Paso, Tex., Moorfield Storey, of Boston, Mass., and James A. Cobb, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Claude Pollard and D. A. Simmons, both of Austin, Tex., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 537-538 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action against the Judges of Elections for refusing to permit the plaintiff to vote at a primary election in Texas. It lays the damages at five thousand dollars. The petition alleges that the plaintiff is a negro, a citizen of the United States and of Texas and a resident of El Paso, and in every way qualified to vote, as set forth in detail, except that the statute to be mentioned interferes with his right; that on July 26, 1924, a primary election was held at El Paso for the nomination of candidates for a senator and representatives in Congress and State and other offices, upon the Democratic ticket; that the plaintiff, being a member of the Democratic party, sought to vote but was denied the right by defendants; that the denial was based upon a statute of Texas enacted in May, 1923 (Acts 38th Leg. 2d Called Sess. (1923) c. 32, § 1 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. 1925, art. 3107)), and designated article 3093a, by the words of which 'in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas,' etc., and that this statute is contrary to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The defendants moved to dismiss upon the ground that the subject-matter of the suit was political and not within the jurisdiction of the Court and that no violation of the Amendments was shown. The suit was dismissed and a writ of error was taken directly to this Court. Here no argument was made on behalf of the defendants but a brief was allowed to be filed by the Attorney General of the State.
The objection that the subject-matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words. Of course the petition concerns political action but it alleges and seeks to recover for private damage. That private damage may be caused by such political action and may be recovered for in suit at law hardly has been doubted for over two hundred years, since Ashby v. White, 2 Ld. Raym. 938, 3 Ld. Raym. 320, and has been recognized by this Court. Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58, 64, 65, 21 S. Ct. 17, 45 L. Ed. 84; Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475, 485, 23 S. Ct. 639, 47 L. Ed. 909. See also Judicial Code, § 24(11), (12), (14); Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231; 36 Stat. 1087, 1092 (Comp. St. § 991). If the defendants' conduct was a wrong to the plaintiff the same reasons that allow a recovery for denying the plaintiff a vote at a final election allow it for denying a vote at the primary election that may determine the final result.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bakke v. Regents of University of California
...enjoyed by the majority of citizens. (See, e.g., Strauder v. West Virginia (1879) 100 U.S. 303, 25 L.Ed. 664; Nixon v. Herndon (1927) 273 U.S. 536, 47 S.Ct. 446, 71 L.Ed. 759; Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. Beginning with Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 34......
-
United States v. Manning
...clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down unreasonable discrimination in the electoral process. Nixon v. Herndon, 1927, 273 U.S. 536, 47 S.Ct. 446, 77 L.Ed. 759. These amendments, independently of Article I, Section 4, are expressly enforceable by "appropriate legislation". They are......
-
Bachur v. Democratic Nat. Party
...U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 52 S.Ct. 484, 76 L.Ed. 984 (1932); Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 47 S.Ct. 446, 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927). The question becomes whether these decisions have withstood the test of time, given the Court's express disclaimer......
-
Shields v. Booles
... ... It is ... true that a voter may maintain an action against persons who ... wrongfully deprive him of the right to vote. Nixon v ... Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 47 S.Ct. 446, 71 L.Ed. 759; ... Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58, 21 S.Ct. 17, 45 L.Ed ... 84; Giles v. Harris, ... ...
-
Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law.
...against election officials under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. See, e.g., Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 274 (1939); Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 (1927). In 1900, Wiley v. Sinkler held that a federal court had jurisdiction over such a claim, although the Court noted without resolving ......
-
Table of Cases
...(1932), 918, 1079, 1513 Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982), 191, 248, 323, 842-45 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 47 S.Ct. 446 (Mem.), 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927), 918, 1079, Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541 U.S. 125, 124 S.Ct. 1555, 158 L.Ed.2d 291 (200......
-
DEBS AND THE FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION.
...arising from a state's geographical distribution of electoral strength among its political subdivisions."). (68) See Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 539-42 (1927); Wayne v. Venable, 260 F. 64, 65, 70 (8th Cir. 1919); Ashby v. While (1703) 92 Eng. Rep. 126; 2 Ld. Raym. 939; see also Lane v. ......
-
Did liberal justices invent the standing doctrine? An empirical study of the evolution of standing, 1921-2006.
...v. N.Y Cent. R.R. Co., 271 U.S. 228 (1926) (p. 1425 n.289); Mass. State Grange v. Benton, 272 U.S. 525 (1926) (p. 1425); Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927) (p. 1451 n.462); Willing v. Chi. Auditorium Ass'n., 277 U.S. 274 (1928) (p. 1457); Exparte Bakelite, 279 U.S. 438 (1929) (p. 1414 n.......