FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1331   1332   1333   1334   1335   1336   1337   1338   1339   1340   1341   1342   1343   1344   1345   1346   1347   1348   1349   1350   1351   1352   1353   1354   1355  
1356   1357   1358   1359   1360   1361   1362   1363   1364   1365   1366   1367   1368   1369   1370   1371   1372   1373   1374   1375   1376   1377   1378   1379   1380   >>   >|  
the Court had relied upon the equal protection clause to strike down a Texas White Primary Law[8] and a subsequent Texas statute which contributed to a like exclusion by limiting voting in primaries to members of State political parties as determined by the central committees thereof.[9] When exclusion of Negroes was thereafter perpetuated by political parties acting not in obedience to any statutory command, this discrimination was for a time viewed as not constituting State action and therefore not prohibited by either the Fourteenth or the Fifteenth Amendments.[10] But this holding was reversed nine years later when the Court, in Smith _v._ Allwright,[11] declared that where the selection of candidates for public office is entrusted by statute to political parties, a political party in making its selection at a primary election is a State agency, and hence may not under this amendment exclude Negroes from such elections. At a very early date the Court held that literacy tests which are drafted so as to apply alike to all applicants for the voting franchise would be deemed to be fair on their face, and in the absence of proof of discriminatory enforcement could not be viewed as denying the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.[12] More recently, the Boswell amendment to the constitution of Alabama, which provided that only persons who understood and could explain the Constitution of the United States to the reasonable satisfaction of boards of registrars was found, both in its object as well as in the manner of its administration, to be contrary to the Fifteenth Amendment. The legislative history of the adoption of the Alabama provision disclosed that "the ambiguity inherent in the phrase 'understand and explain' * * * was purposeful * * * and was intended as a grant of arbitrary power in an attempt to obviate the consequences of" Smith _v._ Allwright.[13] Enforcement Two major questions have presented themselves for decision as a consequence of the exercise by Congress of its powers to enforce this article, an amendment which the Court has acknowledged to be self-executing.[14] These have pertained to the limitations which the amendment imposes on the competency of Congress legislating thereunder to punish racial discrimination founded upon more than a denial of suffrage and to penalize such denials when perpetrated by private individuals not acting under color of public author
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1331   1332   1333   1334   1335   1336   1337   1338   1339   1340   1341   1342   1343   1344   1345   1346   1347   1348   1349   1350   1351   1352   1353   1354   1355  
1356   1357   1358   1359   1360   1361   1362   1363   1364   1365   1366   1367   1368   1369   1370   1371   1372   1373   1374   1375   1376   1377   1378   1379   1380   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

amendment

 

political

 
parties
 

acting

 

viewed

 

discrimination

 

selection

 

Allwright

 

Fourteenth

 

Congress


Fifteenth

 
Amendment
 
public
 

Negroes

 
exclusion
 
explain
 

voting

 

Alabama

 

protection

 

statute


adoption

 

provided

 

provision

 

ambiguity

 

disclosed

 

Boswell

 

purposeful

 

understand

 

recently

 
inherent

phrase

 

constitution

 
history
 

States

 

United

 
object
 

registrars

 
boards
 

intended

 
reasonable

manner

 

legislative

 

satisfaction

 
contrary
 

Constitution

 

administration

 
understood
 

persons

 

presented

 
thereunder