United States v. State of Texas, Civ. A. No. 1570.
| Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | BROWN and THORNBERRY, Circuit , and SPEARS |
| Citation | 252 F. Supp. 234 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF TEXAS et al., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1570. |
252 F. Supp. 234
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
The STATE OF TEXAS et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 1570.
United States District Court W. D. Texas, Austin Division.
February 9, 1966.
John E. Clark, Trueman O'Quinn, Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, John Reeves, John H. Banks, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, Doren R. Eskew, City Atty., Kenneth Jones, Asst. City Atty., Wallace Shropshire, Atty. for Travis County, Austin, Tex., for defendants.
Before BROWN and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge.
THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:
In this action the Attorney General of the United States challenges the validity of the Texas poll tax,1 pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, and 42 U.S.C. 1971(c). The United States seeks to show that the requirement of the payment of a poll tax as a precondition for voting in Texas is a device conceived primarily to deprive Negroes of the franchise and that it has continued to have that effect because the inadequate and disparate educational opportunity given Negroes until recent years by the State has placed them at an economic disadvantage and made the payment of the $1.75 poll tax a heavier burden on the Negro than on whites, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The United States also alleges that the Texas poll tax deprives Negroes of the right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment and that, irrespective of any discrimination, it is invalid under the Due Process Clause since it does not have any adequate state justification and is in fact a restraint and a charge on the exercise of the fundamental right to vote. Although we find that the Texas poll tax is not violative of the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifteenth Amendment, for reasons which we shall discuss at length, we hold that the payment of a poll tax as a precondition to voting must fall as an unjustified restriction on one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.
I.
The United States Attorney General filed a complaint invoking the jurisdiction of this three-judge District Court under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 10, 79 Stat. 442-443.2 Jurisdiction is also asserted under
Standing to bring this suit is established by Section 10(b) of the Voting
II.
Although frequently thought of as a tax on the privilege of voting, the poll tax is actually a head tax. In this context, "poll" means "head" rather than the term customarily used to describe a place of voting.7 The first poll tax in Texas, one dollar on white males from 21 to 55, was levied on June 12, 1837,8 soon after Texas declared its independence from Mexico and became a Republic. From that time up until the Constitutional Amendment in 1902, there was no relation between the poll tax and the right to vote.9 Negroes were enfranchised in Texas in 186910 and became liable for the poll tax in 1870.11 By 1870, there were 50,000 Negro and 60,000 white voters on the rolls. Proposals to make payment of the poll tax a qualification for voting were first raised in the 1875 Constitutional Convention12 and frequently thereafter.13 Finally, in 1901 the Texas Legislature, by Joint Resolution, proposed a constitutional amendment to make payment of the poll tax a prerequisite to voting,14 and in 1902 the voters of Texas approved.15
We cannot improve on the following excellent summary of the Texas poll tax requirements found in the United States' brief: In order to vote in general, special and primary elections of the cities, counties and State, a person must be (1) twenty-one years old, (2) a citizen, (3) a resident of the State for one year and of the district or county in which the election is held for six months, and (4) a holder of a poll tax receipt, if liable for the tax.16 The same preconditions apply to voting for federal officials except that the payment of poll taxes17 has been prohibited
The poll tax is imposed on all residents of the State between the ages of twenty-one and sixty as of January 1 of the tax year.19 The amount of the tax is $1.50,20 but counties are authorized to require payment of an additional $.25 to defray the cost of collection. In addition, cities are authorized to impose a poll tax21 of $1.00 as a precondition to voting in city elections. The tax must be paid between October 1 of the tax year and January 31 of the following year.22 The deadline for payment precedes general elections in November by nine months. The Texas Constitution allocates one dollar of the tax to public education.23
Persons over the age of sixty on January 1 of the tax year are exempt from the tax,24 but, if they live in a city of over 10,000 population, they must obtain "overage" certificates of exemption during the same four-month period that poll taxes are paid.25 Persons over sixty who live in small towns or rural areas are allowed to vote without paying poll taxes or procuring a certificate of exemption. Persons who became 21 after the beginning of the tax year but before the election, regardless of the population of the area of residence, must obtain a certificate of exemption at least thirty days before the election.26 The same rule applies to persons who become residents of the State after January 1 of the tax year.27
Poll taxes are paid to and certificates of exemption are issued by the County Tax Assessor-Collectors who are agents of the State for this purpose.28 Payment of poll taxes may be tendered in person or mailed, and, in either case, payment may be made by the taxpayer himself or by certain close relatives.29 The taxpayer must use his own money to pay the tax, since wilfully loaning or advancing money to another person for poll tax payment is punishable by a $500 fine.30
A County Tax Assessor-Collector "may at such places as shall in his discretion be necessary or advisable" appoint deputies for the purpose of accepting poll tax payments and issuing certificates of exemption.31 In counties containing a city of 10,000 or more inhabitants, other than the county seat, provision is made by statute for a poll tax deputy to accept payments and issue exemption certificates in the city, but only during the month of January.32 These statutes appear
Texas does not have a separate system for registration of voters. At the time he pays his poll taxes, a prospective voter is required to show that he satisfies the voting preconditions of age, citizenship and residence. This information is recorded on his poll tax receipt, a copy of which is retained for use by the Tax Assessor-Collector in compiling lists of qualified voters.34 Before April 1 of each year, the Tax Assessor-Collector of each county is required to compile and certify lists of the names of qualified voters, by election precinct, who have paid their poll taxes or received certificates of exemption during the statutory four-month period.35 These lists are ultimately transmitted to the precinct judges of election.36 With certain minor exceptions,37 only persons whose names appear on such lists or on supplemental lists are allowed to vote.38
III.
The United States urges a number of theories as the basis of its attack on the constitutionality of the poll tax. It contends that the State of Texas by failing to provide Negroes with educational opportunities equivalent to those given to white students has limited their income-producing potential and that, as a result, the payment of the poll tax is a more difficult burden on the Negro than on the non-Negro. This disparity of educational and economic opportunity when coupled with a historical structure of social and political segregation is asserted to have deprived Negroes of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
To establish this theory, the United States offered evidence of the relationship between educational level and income potential and statistics showing the inferior educational and vocational training formerly provided Negroes. Charts and figures were presented to show the disparity in annual instructional expenditures per pupil, in teacher salaries, in
As evidence of the effect of the poll tax on Negroes, the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Brown, S.F. 22916
...durational residence requirements are needed to deal with the evils of fraud.' (See also United States v. State of Texas (W.D.Tex.1966) 252 F.Supp. 234, 251, fn. 71, motion to affirm granted without opinion, 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 434.) Page 144 [507 P.2d 1352] [9 Cal.3d 21......
-
Graves v. Barnes, Civ. A. No. A-71-CA-142 to A-71-CA-145.
...tax had originally been imposed in 1902 for the purpose of disenfranchising the Negro. United States v. State of Texas, W.D.Tex.1966, 252 F.Supp. 234, 245, affirmed 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 17 Since the Reconstruction Era, there have been only two blacks from the Dallas Count......
-
Black Voters Matter Fund v. Raffensperger, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01489-AT
...on the right to vote is necessary to accomplish a permissible state policy, it will be upheld." Id. (citing United States v. Texas , 252 F. Supp. 234, 251 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 434 (1966) ). Confusingly, the court also cited a 1910 Colorado Supreme Court......
-
Seamon v. Upham, Civ. A. No. P-81-49-CA.
...system. — Texas v. United States, 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 434 (1966), affirming United States v. State of Texas, 252 F.Supp. 234 The Supreme Court summarily affirmed a lower court ruling invalidating the use of a poll tax as a precondition to voting. The lower court found th......
-
Ramirez v. Brown, S.F. 22916
...durational residence requirements are needed to deal with the evils of fraud.' (See also United States v. State of Texas (W.D.Tex.1966) 252 F.Supp. 234, 251, fn. 71, motion to affirm granted without opinion, 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 434.) Page 144 [507 P.2d 1352] [9 Cal.3d 21......
-
Graves v. Barnes, Civ. A. No. A-71-CA-142 to A-71-CA-145.
...tax had originally been imposed in 1902 for the purpose of disenfranchising the Negro. United States v. State of Texas, W.D.Tex.1966, 252 F.Supp. 234, 245, affirmed 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 17 Since the Reconstruction Era, there have been only two blacks from the Dallas Count......
-
Black Voters Matter Fund v. Raffensperger, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01489-AT
...on the right to vote is necessary to accomplish a permissible state policy, it will be upheld." Id. (citing United States v. Texas , 252 F. Supp. 234, 251 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 434 (1966) ). Confusingly, the court also cited a 1910 Colorado Supreme Court......
-
Seamon v. Upham, Civ. A. No. P-81-49-CA.
...system. — Texas v. United States, 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 434 (1966), affirming United States v. State of Texas, 252 F.Supp. 234 The Supreme Court summarily affirmed a lower court ruling invalidating the use of a poll tax as a precondition to voting. The lower court found th......