Common Sense Americanism Logo
 
Think you know your stuff about U.S. Wars & Conflicts?  Click to find out!
Today in History: U. S. Steps Up Bombing of North Vietnam ... click to read about it!
Ever wonder what your paycheck was worth back in 1970? Or 1790? Click here to find out!

Site Links

• Home Page
• The Foundations
     of Americanism

• Historic Document
     Library

     • The Declaration of
        Independence

     • The U.S. Constitution
     • The Bill of Rights
     • The Amendments
• Supreme Court Cases
• Today In History
Article Archives --
     • Editorials
     • Opinion
     • In-Depth
     • Headlines
     • Court Challenges

• About Us

Site Search

Go
     Search Tips

Read or Post Mail
by Topic


Opinion & Analysis
Sources

Michael Barone
Brent Bozell
Pat Buchanan
Mona Charen
Ann Coulter
Diane Dimond
Erick Erickson
Jonah Goldberg
John C. Goodman
Victor Davis Hanson
Froma Harrop
David Harsanyi
Laura Hollis
Jeff Jacoby
Charles Krauthammer
Rich Lowry
Michelle Malkin
Mychal Massie
Betsy McCaughey
Stephen Moore
William Murchison
Andrew Napolitano
Peggy Noonan
Bill O'Reilly
Kathleen Parker
Dennis Prager
Wesley Pruden
Scott Rasmussen
Damon Root
Debra J. Saunders
Mark Shields
Thomas Sowell
John Stossel
Jacob Sullum
Cal Thomas
Hans von Spakovsky
George Will
Walter Williams
Byron York


Supreme Court Decision
Click to join our News & Views e-mail alert
Know Your Stuff?

Fact lists about ...
U.S. Presidents
States & Territories
States Ranked
U.S. Chief Justices
U.S. Wars & Conflicts
Fed'l Debt & Spending
114th Congress

Flash Stats on ...
Congress
The Supreme Court
Tax Freedom Day

Take our
Americana Quiz


Grovey v. Townsend
[295 U.S. 45]
Hughes Court,  Decided 9-0,  4/1/1935


Chief Justice Charles Evans HughesGrovey is a fairly straightforward case defending the use of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to force states to protect clearly constitutional rights -- in this case the right to vote assured by the Fifteenth Amendment -- while refusing to use it in private intervention.

Originally the Constitution allowed much leeway to the states in determining the right to vote, stating simply that voter qualifications in each state shall be equal to those required for the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 changed that, by requiring states not to discriminate on the basis of "race, color or previous condition of servitude" in mandating voter qualifications. (Though it still theoretically left them loopholes such as literacy tests which could substantively reduce the black vote.)

When the state of Texas passed a 1923 law prohibiting the participation of blacks in the Democratic primary, the case was tested in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) and the statute found unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The state then authorized the party's executive board to deny blacks the vote in the primaries. Again, the Supreme Court overruled, in Nixon v. Condon (1932), because the state was still actively involved in violating rights guaranteed through the Fourteenth.

Before Condon was decided, the Texas party took steps on its own, purportedly without state prompting, to limit membership to whites. Refused a ballot for the 1932 primary, one Grovey, a black man, sued.

In this case the Court ruled that the exclusion of blacks by the party was not a state action, but one undertaken by an organization comprised of voluntary members acting in a private capacity. Writing for the Court, Justice Owen Roberts acknowledged that primaries are heavily regulated by the state but, absent specific state involvement, could not concede that the party's actions were unconstitutional.

This case is clearly touchy simply because it involves a right so basic to liberty as voting for one's representation, and an outlook so pernicious as mass discrimination based solely upon skin color. In addition, primaries are so closely involved with the general concept and operation of democratic government at all levels that it's hard to separate them from state action.

Nonetheless, while the Grovey Court may have sidestepped these issues, their analysis of the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment is, in our opinion, correct. The framers of the Amendment made it quite clear that it was not intended to affect the franchise, a right still largely reserved to the states, nor operate on private entities.

In Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Court reversed Grovey on the basis that primaries are an integral part of the election process, and therefore subject to the constraints of the Fifteenth Amendment just as state and federal elections would be. This was a cleaner decision which avoided muddling the Fourteenth.


Comment on this Decision

Read Comments  On this decision specifically,
     ... or on subject Voting Rights    Find other Documents
     ... or on subject Civil Rights    Find other Documents
     ... or on subject 14th Amendment    Find other Documents

Write your Congressmen on this issue.

Other decisions pertaining to Voting Rights:

Baker v. Carr    [369 U.S. 186 (1962)]  Warren Court
Gray v. Sanders    [372 U.S. 368 (1963)]  Warren Court
Minor v. Happersett    [88 U.S. 162 (1875)]  Waite Court
Reynolds v. Sims    [377 U.S. 533 (1964)]  Warren Court
Smith v. Allwright    [321 U.S. 649 (1944)]  Stone Court
South Carolina v. Katzenbach    [383 U.S. 301 (1966)]  Warren Court
United States v. Cruikshank    [92 U.S. 542 (1876)]  Waite Court

Copyright © 1999-2017 Common Sense Americanism - All rights reserved
Privacy Policy   Submitting Articles   Site Guide & Info
Home Page