William Pope v. John Williams, No. 7
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 24 S.Ct. 573,193 U.S. 621,48 L.Ed. 817 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1904 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. POPE, Plff. in Err. , v. JOHN M. C. WILLIAMS and John W. Harper, Officers of Registration, Constituting the Board of Registry for Election Districtof Montgomery County, Maryland |
| Docket Number | No. 7,No. 503 |
v.
JOHN M. C. WILLIAMS and John W. Harper, Officers of Registration, Constituting the Board of Registry for Election District No. 7 of Montgomery County, Maryland.
This is a writ of error to the court of appeals of the state of Maryland, to review its judgment affirming that of the circuit court for Montgomery county, which affirmed the proceedings of the board of registry of election district No. 7 of that county,
Page 622
refusing to register petitioner as a legal voter on the ground of his noncompliance with the Maryland law making it necessary for a person coming into the state, with the intention of residing therein, to register his name with the clerk of the circuit court of the proper county, and thereby to indicate the intent of such person to become a citizen and resident of the state.
The act in question was passed March 29, 1902, as chapter 133 of the laws of that year, and as an amendment and supplement to the Public General Laws of the State, title Elections, subtitle Registration, as § 25b, and it is reproduced in the margin.
Plaintiff in error on September 29, 1903, presented his ap-
Page 623
plication to the board of registry of election district No. 7, Montgomery county, Maryland, then sitting at a place within such district, to be registered and entered as a qualified voter on the registry of voters of that election district, which application the board refused and declined to comply with, for the sole reason that he had not complied with this law of Maryland. Thereafter the plaintiff presented a sworn petition to the circuit court for Montgomery county, in the state of Maryland, praying that court to enter an order to revise the action of the board of registry, and to order and direct that the name of the petitioner should be entered as a qualified voter on the registry of voters of the election district already named. In that sworn petition he alleged that he had, on June 7, 1902, with his wife and child, removed from the city of Washington, District of Columbia, into Montgomery county, in the state of Maryland, 'having then had, and ever since and now having, the intention of making the state of Maryland the permanent domicil of himself and his family, and of becoming a citizen of said state; and ever since said June 7, 1902, petitioner has resided in the subdivision of Otterbourne, near Chevy Chase, in said Montgomery county, and in the seventh election district of said county.'
The petitioner further showed in his petition that he had made application to the proper board of registry in the election district mentioned, and the board had refused to enter his name as a qualified voter on the ground already stated, of noncompliance with the Maryland statute.
The petitioner admitted 'that he did not, within a year prior to said application for registration as a qualified voter, or at any time during the year 1902, in any manner make or register, in the office of or before the clerk of Montgomery county, Maryland, or in a record book kept by said clerk, a declaration of intention to become a citizen and resident of Maryland, such as is required by the aforesaid law to be made by persons who remove into the state of Maryland after March 29, 1902, as a condition precedent to subsequent regis-
Page 624
tration of such persons as qualified voters. Petitioner, however, claims and asserts that said § 25b of article 33 of the Code of Public General Laws of Maryland affords no justification for said refusal to register your petitioner as a qualified voter, because said alleged law contravenes and is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Maryland, and is, therefore, null and void.'
The petitioner then asserts and sets forth in his petition several grounds which, as he therein alleges, render the state law a violation of the Constitution of the State of Maryland, and he also specially sets up and claims that the law is a violation of the Constitution of the United States in the particulars named by him, and which are as follows:
'Said law is repugnant to that portion of § 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that, 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' because by said law it is in effect ordained that male citizens of the United States of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, removing into the state of Maryland after March 29, 1902, with the intention of making said state their permanent domicil, shall not be treated as citizens or residents of Maryland, or given the rights and privileges of citizens of Maryland, until they have been naturalized in the mode prescribed by said law.
'Said law is also repugnant to that portion of § 1 of said 14th Amendment to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raza Unida Party v. Bullock, No. SA-72-CA-158
...45, 51, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959); cf. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1964); Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 24 S.Ct. 573, 48 L.Ed. 817 38 Oregon v. Mitchell, supra. 39 405 U.S. at 143, 92 S.Ct. at 856. 40 U.S.Const. art. I, § 2 Representatives, § 3......
-
Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 7183.
...equally applicable to a citizen of a territory." Cf. Pope v. Williams, 98 Md. 59, 56 A. 543, 66 L.R.A. 398, 103 Am.St.Rep. 379, affirmed, 193 U. S. 621, 24 S.Ct. 573, 48 L.Ed. 817. 15 R.S. §§ 905, 906, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 687, 688. See Embry v. Palmer, 107 U.S. 3, 2 S.Ct. 25, 27 L.Ed. 346; Atchi......
-
Shaw v. Barr, Civ. A. No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR.
...In the few cases of which we have been made aware in which the assertion has been made, it has been rejected. See, e.g., Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 632, 24 S.Ct. 573, 575, 48 L.Ed. 817 (1904); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 172-78, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1875). In any event, if th......
-
Palla v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections
...Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 50, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072; Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675; Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 24 S.Ct. 573, 48 L.Ed. 817), for all save national elections for presidential and vice-presidential electors (Voting Rights Act, Amendments of 1......
-
Raza Unida Party v. Bullock, No. SA-72-CA-158
...45, 51, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959); cf. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1964); Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 24 S.Ct. 573, 48 L.Ed. 817 38 Oregon v. Mitchell, supra. 39 405 U.S. at 143, 92 S.Ct. at 856. 40 U.S.Const. art. I, § 2 Representatives, § 3......
-
Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 7183.
...equally applicable to a citizen of a territory." Cf. Pope v. Williams, 98 Md. 59, 56 A. 543, 66 L.R.A. 398, 103 Am.St.Rep. 379, affirmed, 193 U. S. 621, 24 S.Ct. 573, 48 L.Ed. 817. 15 R.S. §§ 905, 906, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 687, 688. See Embry v. Palmer, 107 U.S. 3, 2 S.Ct. 25, 27 L.Ed. 346; Atchi......
-
Shaw v. Barr, Civ. A. No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR.
...In the few cases of which we have been made aware in which the assertion has been made, it has been rejected. See, e.g., Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 632, 24 S.Ct. 573, 575, 48 L.Ed. 817 (1904); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 172-78, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1875). In any event, if th......
-
Palla v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections
...Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 50, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072; Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675; Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 24 S.Ct. 573, 48 L.Ed. 817), for all save national elections for presidential and vice-presidential electors (Voting Rights Act, Amendments of 1......