Leser v. Garnett
258 U.S. 130 (1922)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922)

Leser v. Garnett

No. 553

Argued January 23, 24, 1922

Decided February 27, 1922

258 U.S. 130

Syllabus

1. A suit by qualified voters of Maryland to require the Maryland Board of Registry to strike the names of women from the register of voters upon the grounds that the state constitution limits the suffrage to men and that the Nineteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution was not validly adopted is maintainable under the Maryland law, and raises the question whether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the Constitution. P. 258 U. S. 136.

2. The objection that a great addition to the electorate, made without a state's consent, destroys its political autonomy and therefore exceeds the amending power applies no more to the Nineteenth Amendment than to the Fifteenth Amendment, which is valid beyond question. P. 258 U. S. 136.

3. The Fifteenth Amendment does not owe its validity to adoption as a war measure and acquiescence. P. 258 U. S. 136.

4. The function of a state legislature in passing on a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution is federal, and not subject to limitation by the people of the state. P. 258 U. S. 137. Hawke v. Smith,253 U. S. 221, 253 U. S. 231.

5. Official notice from a state legislature to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated, of its adoption of a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution is conclusive upon him and, when certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. P. 258 U. S. 137. Field v. Clark,143 U. S. 649, 143 U. S. 672-673.

139 Md. 46 affirmed.

Certiorari to a decree of the court below affirming a decision of the state trial court dismissing a petition by

Page 258 U. S. 131

which the plaintiffs in error sought to require the members of the Maryland Board of Registry to strike the names of specified woman voters from the registration list.

Page 258 U. S. 135

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.