Peay v. Cox, 13494.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 13494.,13494. |
| Citation | 190 F.2d 123 |
| Parties | PEAY et al. v. COX, Registrar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
T. Price Dale, Hattiesburg, Miss., for appellant.
M. M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, Miss., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and SIBLEY and STRUM, Circuit Judges.
The appeal is from the dismissal without prejudice of a suit by colored citizens of Mississippi in which they sought by a federal injunction to restrain the registrar of voters from discrimination because of color in refusing to register them as voters in violation of the law of Mississippi and contrary to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Peay and fourteen others allege that they are native born citizens of Mississippi and the United States residing in Forrest County, qualified in all respects to register and vote in elections, federal, state and local, under the Constitution and laws of Mississippi; that the said Constitution and laws require registration of voters, and a new registration was ordered to be begun on June 1, 1950, for use in future elections. L. M. Cox, appellee, is the Registrar for Forrest County. Plaintiffs and many other colored citizens have appeared before him in his office and applied to register, all being able to read any section of the Constitution of Mississippi, but the Registrar, by a misconstruction of Section 244 of the Constitution of Mississippi, which requires, among other things, that a voter shall "be able to read any section of the Constitution of this state; or he shall be able to understand the same when read to him or give a reasonable interpretation thereof", has in all instances of application by a colored voter examined him on the meaning of some section of the Constitution, especially Section 14 providing that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law", and the Registrar would express dissatisfaction with the answers, and decline to register them, as he did all the plaintiffs. Though there are nearly as many colored voters in Forrest County as white voters, no such questioning is made of the white voters and several thousand of them have already been registered, but the Registrar has allowed to register only about fifty colored voters. The petition charges that the Registrar, acting under color of his misconstruction of the Constitution, is purposely applying a different test to colored voters from that applied to whites, and depriving petitioners of their right to vote as secured to them by the Fifteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution; and that the District Court has jurisdiction to redress the wrong by damages and injunction under Title 8, Section 43, of the United States Code Annotated, and Title 28, Section 1343(3). The petitioners however allege that they do not seek damages, but only an injunction to require the Registrar to register petitioners and other colored citizens as he registers white citizens, that is, without examining them as to the meaning of any section of the Constitution where the voter can read any section. The petition states that the statutes of Mississippi provide for an appeal from the refusal of the Registrar to register any person, but contends that the remedy applies to isolated denials and not to a wholesale denial of whole categories of citizens by a gross misconstruction of the Constitution of Mississippi, and claims that the remedy by appeal need not be exhausted before seeking a federal injunction.
The answer, besides making fact denials, sets up as special defenses: (1) that no claim is set up on which relief can be had; (2) that no jurisdiction is shown in the District Court; (3) that the remedy under the laws of Mississippi must be exhausted before the suit can be entertained; (4) the suit undertakes to control the State and its officers and is in effect against the State and forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment of the federal Constitution; and (5) the defendant is sued as an officer and the State has not consented.
The District Court heard no evidence, but on the face of the petition, without opinion, sustained the five defenses just mentioned and dismissed it without prejudice.
1. No attack is here made on the State Constitution or statutes. The complaint is that the Registrar is misconstruing the law and his powers under it, and has set up a different test for colored voters to register from that applied to white voters, with the purpose and effect of depriving the colored voters, and specifically the petitioners, of registration, and consequently of their right to vote, and only because of their color. The Fifteenth Amendment declares that the right of United States citizens to vote shall not be denied or impaired by the United States or any State because of color, and that the Congress shall enforce this provision by appropriate legislation. When registration is a prerequisite to voting, to prevent registration prevents voting as effectually as excluding the voter by force from the voting place, or refusing his ballot for no just cause when offered at the polls. The legislation in 8 U.S.C.A. § 43, and 28 U.S. C.A. § 1343(3) above referred to is appropriate and sufficient for the district court to try such a case and give effectual relief. Grounds of defense (1) and (2) above set out ought not to have been sustained.
2. Grounds (4) and (5) that the suit is in effect against the State and forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment stand no better. No right, title or interest of the State is here sought to be recovered or affected. Its laws are not even attacked. Its officer is not sued as representing the State, but he is charged with misrepresenting the State and misconstruing its laws. The fact that he is an officer acting under color of State law makes what he does State action within the prohibition of the Fifteenth Amendment, but does not make the suit one against the State under the Eleventh Amendment when he is sued for wrongdoing as here. We held as much lately in Cook v. Davis, 5 Cir., 178 F.2d 595.
3. We think however that the remedy by injunction, which is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryan v. Austin
...Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 86 L.Ed. 1620. The remedy by injunction is likewise discretionary. Peay v. Cox, 5 Cir., 190 F.2d 123." The district court withheld exercise of jurisdiction and retained the case to permit the exhaustion of state administrative and j......
-
Darby v. Daniel, Civ. A. 2748.
...to the courts is also provided. This administrative machinery has the explicit approval not only of Williams, supra, but of Peay v. Cox, 5 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 123, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 896, 72 S.Ct. 230, 96 L.Ed. It would be hard to conceive of constitutional provisions which safegua......
-
United States v. State of Mississippi, Civ. A. No. 3312.
...of the more vivid of these. And For Or The first is the amendment to § 244 to prescribe a read and understand test. Though Peay v. Cox, 5 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 123, opened up the door to Negroes who could read or understand, the effort in 1952 to amend the Constitution was unsuccessful. In 1......
-
Armstrong v. Board of Education of City of Birmingham, Ala.
...one which has considered the case on its merits and, therefore, is familiar with the record." (Emphasis added) See also Peay et al. v. Cox, 5 Cir. 1951, 190 F.2d 123, wherein the court was dealing with the question of injunctions and the exhaustion of administrative remedies and there held ......