Pherson v. Blacker
Citation | 146 U.S. 1,36 L.Ed. 869,13 S.Ct. 3 |
Decision Date | 17 October 1892 |
Docket Number | No. 1,170,1,170 |
Parties | McPHERSON et al. v. BLACKER, Secretary of State |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
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. Swensburg, Henry A. Haigh, James H. White, Fred. Slocum, Justus S. Stearns, John Millen, Julius T. Hannah, and J. H. 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, Pub. Acts Mich. 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 confiict 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 1st of July and the 1st 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 (1 How. Ann. St. Mich. § 147, c. 9, p. 133) provided: 'The secretary of the state shall, between the 1st day of July and the 1st 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 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 2 of section 1 of article 2 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 2, § 1, art. 2, 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 N. W. 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 10th, and on Tuesday, October 11th, 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, Pub. Acts Mich. 1891, pp. 258, 263,) the chief justice, on Monday, October 17th, 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:
'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.
'Section 1. The people of the state of Michigan enact that, at the general election next preceding the choice of president and vice president of the United States, there shall be elected as many electors of president and vice president as this state may be entitled to elect of senators and representatives in congress in the following manner, that is to say: There shall be elected by the electors of the districts hereinafter defined one elector of president and vice president of the United States in each district, who shall be known and designated on the ballot, respectively, as 'eastern district elector of president and vice president of the United States at large,' and 'western district elector of president and vice president of the United States at large.' There shall also be elected, in like manner, two alternate electors of president and vice president, who shall be known and designated on the ballot as 'eastern district alternate elector of president and vice president of the United States at large,' and 'western district alternate elector of president and vice president of the United States at large;' for which purpose the first, second, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth congressional districts shall compose one district, to be known as the 'Eastern Electoral District,' and the third, fourth, fifth, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth congressional districts shall compose the other district, to be known as the 'Western Electoral District.' There shall also be elected, by the electors in each congressional district into which the state is or shall be divided, one electors of president and vice president, and one alternate elector of president and vice president, the ballots for which shall designate the number of the congressional district and the persons to be voted for therein, as 'district elector' and 'alternate district elector' of president and vice president of the United States, respectively.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State of Idaho v. Freeman
... ... As the Supreme Court pointedly noted in its citation of McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 24, 13 S.Ct. 3, 6 36 L.Ed. 869, the possibility that action might be taken in disregard of a final judicial determination is an ... ...
- Castañon v. United States, Civil Action No. 18-2545 Three-Judge Court (RDM, RLW, TNM)
-
Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
... ... appellant. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Chowning (Tex ... Sup.), 26 S.W. 982 (24 L. R. A., 505); McPherson v ... Blacker, 146 U.S. 38-40, (13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L. Ed., 869) ... The ... precise question put by the court, as to whether the basis of ... ...
-
PG Publ'g Co. v. Aichele, Civil Action No. 12-960
...by the Constitution of the United States," it "cannot be taken from them or modified by their State constitutions." McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892)(emphasis added), quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess. Pennsylvania law provides for the popular ......
-
LIQUIDATING THE INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE THEORY.
...with Congress's sweeping authority to regulate in any way the 'Manner' of House and Senate elections."). (41.) McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (42.) See Vasan Kesavan, Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional?, 80 N.C. L. Rev. 1653, 1750-51 (2002) ("There is little reason to suppose......
-
Election Law as Ideology: Toward a New Historiography of Democracy as a Function of Law
...not confer the right of suffrage upon any one . . . .”). 53. U.S. CONST. amend. XV, § 1. 54. Id. amend. XIX. 55. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25–26 (1892) (explaining that state legislatures possess “plenary authority to direct the manner of appointment” of elected representatives)......
-
Student Loan Bankruptcy and the Meaning of Educational Benefit.
...("The first rule of constitutional interpretation is, of course, to apply the plain meaning of the text." (citing McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892))); Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220, 1229 (11th Cir. 2004) ("The first rule of constitutional interpretation is to look to the plain mean......
-
The Democracy Canon.
...Reform and the Ghost of Bush v. Gore, 35 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 599, 611-13 (2008). (235.) 531 U.S. 70 (2000). (236.) Id. at 76. (237.) 146 U.S. 1, 25 (238.) Bush, 531 U.S. at 76 (quoting McPherson, 146 U.S. at 25). (239.) Id. at 77. (240.) Id. at 78. (241.) Id. The Court also directed the Fl......