Nixon v. Herndon

Nixon v. Herndon
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 4, 1927 Decided March 7, 1927
Full case name	L.A. Nixon v. C.C. Herndon and another, Judges of Elections
Citations	273 U.S. 536 (more) 47 S.Ct. 446, 71 L.Ed. 759
Prior history	Error to the District Court of the United States for Western District of Texas
Holding
A Texas law prohibiting blacks from voting in the Texas Democratic Party primary violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice William H. Taft Associate Justices Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. · Willis Van Devanter James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis George Sutherland · Pierce Butler Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
Majority	Holmes, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a Texas law which forbade blacks from voting in the Texas Democratic primary. Because Texas was a one-party state, the Democratic Party primary was the only competitive process and chance to choose among candidates. This was one of four cases brought to challenge the Texas Democratic Party's all-white primary, all of which were supported by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Fact

Dr. L.A. Nixon, a black physician in El Paso, sought to vote in the Democratic Party primary of 1924 in El Paso, Texas.^[1] The defendants, who were magistrates in charge of elections, prevented him from doing so on the basis of a Texas statute which provided that "in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas." Nixon sought an injunction against the statute in federal district court. The district court dismissed the suit, and Nixon appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Nixon argued that the statute violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The defendants argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the issue, as it was a political question.

Ruling

The unanimous Court, speaking through Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, rejected the argument that the political question doctrine barred the Court from deciding the case. The argument, said the Court, was "little more than a play upon words." While the injury which the plaintiff alleged "involved political action," his suit "allege[d] and s[ought] to recover for private damage."

The Court then turned to the merits of the suit. It stated that it was unnecessary to discuss whether the statute violated the Fifteenth Amendment, "because it seems to us hard to imagine a more direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth." The Court continued:

“

The [Fourteenth Amendment] ... was passed, as we know, with a special intent to protect the blacks from discrimination against them. ... The statute of Texas ... assumes to forbid negroes to take part in a primary election the importance of which we have indicated, discriminating against them by the distinction of color alone. States may do a good deal of classifying that it is difficult to believe rational, but there are limits, and it is too clear for extended argument that color cannot be made the basis of a statutory classification affecting the right set up in this case.

”

The Court reversed the district court's dismissal of the suit.

Dissent

None.

Aftermath

Texas quickly enacted a new provision to continue restrictions on voter participation, granting authority to political parties to determine who should vote in their primaries. Within four months the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party passed a resolution that "all white Democrats ... and none other" be allowed to participate in the approaching primary of 1927.^[2]

Five years later, Dr. Nixon reappeared before the Supreme Court in another suit against the all-white primary. See Nixon v. Condon (1932).

References

1. ^ Jim Crow Supreme Court Cases: Texas, accessed 21 Mar 2008
2. ^ "Nixon v. Condon. Disfranchisement of the Negro in Texas", The Yale Law Journal, Vol.41, No.8, June 1932, p. 1212, accessed 21 Mar 2008