1. An action for damages may be maintained against judge of
election for unlawfully denying to a qualified voter the right to
vote at a state primary election. P.
273 U. S.
540.
2. A State statute (Texas, 1923, Art. 309a) barring negroes from
participation in Democratic party primary elections held in the
State for the nomination of candidates for senator and
representatives in Congress, and state and other offices, violates
the Fourteenth Amendment. P.
273 U. S.
540.
Reversed.
ERROR to a judgment of the District Court which dismissed an
action for damages brought by a negro against judges of election in
Texas, based on their refusal to permit the plaintiff to vote at a
primary election.
Page 273 U. S. 539
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action against the Judges of Elections for refusing
to permit the plaintiff to vote at a primary election in Texas. It
lays the damages at five thousand dollars. The petition alleges
that the plaintiff is a negro, a citizen of the United States and
of Texas and a resident of El Paso, and in every way qualified to
vote, as set forth in detail, except that the statute to be
mentioned interferes with his right; that, on July 26, 1924, a
primary election was held at El Paso for the nomination of
candidates for a senator and representatives in Congress and State
and other offices, upon the Democratic ticket; that
Page 273 U. S. 540
the plaintiff, being a member of the Democratic party, sought to
vote but was denied the right by defendants; that the denial was
based upon a Statute of Texas enacted in May, 1923, and designated
Article 3093a, by the words of which "in no event shall a negro be
eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held
in the State of Texas," &c., and that this statute is contrary
to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States. The defendants moved to dismiss upon the ground
that the subject matter of the suit was political, and not within
the jurisdiction of the Court and that no violation of the
Amendments was shown. The suit was dismissed, and a writ of error
was taken directly to this Court. Here, no argument was made on
behalf of the defendants, but a brief was allowed to be filed by
the Attorney General of the State.
The objection that the subject matter of the suit is political
is little more than a play upon words. Of course, the petition
concerns political action, but it alleges and seeks to recover for
private damage. That private damage may be caused by such political
action and may be recovered for in a suit at law hardly has been
doubted for over two hundred years, since
Ashby v. White,
2 Ld.Raym. 938, 3
id. 320, and has been recognized by this
Court.
Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58,
179 U. S. 64,
179 U. S. 65.
Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475,
189 U. S. 485.
See also Judicial Code, ยง 24(11), (12), (14). Act of March
3, 1911, c. 231; 36 Stat. 1087, 1092. If the defendants' conduct
was a wrong to the plaintiff, the same reasons that allow a
recovery for denying the plaintiff a vote at a final election allow
it for denying a vote at the primary election that may determine
the final result.
The important question is whether the statute can be sustained.
But although we state it as a question, the answer does not seem to
us open to a doubt. We find it unnecessary to consider the
Fifteenth Amendment, because
Page 273 U. S. 541
it seems to us hard to imagine a more direct and obvious
infringement of the Fourteenth. That Amendment, while it applies to
all, was passed, as we know, with a special intent to protect the
blacks from discrimination against them.
Slaughter
House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.
Strauder v. West
Virginia, 100 U. S. 303.
That Amendment
"not only gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to
persons of color, but it denied to any State the power to withhold
from them the equal protection of the laws. . . . What is this but
declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the
black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white,
shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to
the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily
designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law
because of their color?"
Quoted from the last case in
Buchanan v. Warley,
245 U. S. 60,
245 U. S. 77.
See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356,
118 U. S. 374.
The statute of Texas in the teeth of the prohibitions referred to
assumes to forbid negroes to take part in a primary election the
importance of which we have indicated, discrminating 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
Judgment reversed.