World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Smith v. Allwright

Article Id: WHEBN0000764541
Reproduction Date:

Title: Smith v. Allwright  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Nixon v. Condon, Nixon v. Herndon, Texas Democratic Party, White primaries, Chauncey Sparks
Collection: 1944 in United States Case Law, 20Th Century American Trials, African-American Segregation in the United States, American Civil Liberties Union Litigation, Democratic Party (United States) Litigation, Harris County, Texas, History of Voting Rights in the United States, Primary Elections in the United States, Texas Democratic Party, Texas Elections, United States Elections Case Law, United States Equal Protection Case Law, United States Fifteenth Amendment Case Law, United States Seventeenth Amendment Case Law, United States Supreme Court Cases, United States Supreme Court Cases of the Stone Court
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Smith v. Allwright

Smith v. Allwright
Reargued January 12, 1944
Decided April 3, 1944
Full case name Smith v. Allwright, Election Judge, et al.
Citations 321 U.S. 649 (more)
Holding
Primary elections must be open to voters of all races.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Reed, joined by Stone, Black, Douglas, Murphy, Jackson, Rutledge
Concurrence Frankfurter (in the judgment of the court only)
Dissent Roberts

Smith v. Allwright , 321 U.S. 649 (1944), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation. It overturned the Texas state law that authorized the Democratic Party to set its internal rules, including the use of white primaries. The court ruled that the state had allowed discrimination to be practiced by delegating its authority to the Democratic Party. This affected all other states where the party used the rule.

The Democrats had excluded minority voter participation by this means, another device for legal disenfranchisement of blacks across the South beginning in the late 19th century.

Contents

  • Background 1
  • Issue 2
  • The decision 3
  • References 4
  • Further reading 5
  • External links 6

Background

Lonnie E. Smith, a black dentist from the Fifth Ward area of Houston,[1] and a voter in Harris County, Texas, sued county election official S. S. Allwright for the right to vote in a primary election being conducted by the Democratic Party. He challenged the 1923 state law that authorized the party to establish its internal rules; it required all voters in its primary to be white.

The Democratic Party had controlled politics in the South since the late 19th century (see Solid South) and several state legislatures effectively disenfranchised blacks in the period from 1890 to 1910. As a result, most Southern elections were decided by the outcome of the Democratic Party primary. Texas had used poll taxes and the white primary to exclude nearly all blacks, Mexican Americans, and other minorities from voting. Representing the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall had argued this case in favor of Lonnie E. Smith.

In the earlier case of


  • Text of Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia 

Works related to Smith v. Allwright at Wikisource

External links

  • Hine, Darlene Clark (1979). Black Victory: The Rise and Fall of the White Primary in Texas. Millwood, NY: KTO Press.  
  • Klarman, Michael J. (2001). "The White Primary Rulings: A Case Study in the Consequences of Supreme Court Decisionmaking".  

Further reading

  1. ^ a b West, Richard. "Only the Strong Survive." Texas Monthly. Emmis Communications, February 1979. Volume 7, No. 2. ISSN 0148-7736. START: p. 94. CITED: p. 104.

References

This started black participation in Texas politics. Smith's efforts inspired Barbara Jordan, a Fifth Ward resident who would become a black politician in Texas.[1]

The Court agreed that the restricted primary denied Smith his protection under the law and found in his favor, saying that the state had allowed discrimination to be practiced by delegating its authority to the Democratic Party.

The decision

Texas claimed that the Democratic Party was a private organization that could set its own rules of membership. Smith argued that the state by its law had delegated some of its authority to the Democratic Party, which essentially disenfranchised him by denying him the ability to vote in what was the only meaningful election in his jurisdiction.

Issue
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.