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 *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,
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, be
*541
cause it seems to us hard to .imagine a moré direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth. That Amendment, while it applies to all, was passed, as wé know, with a special intent to protect the blacks from, discrimination against them.
Slaughter House Cases,
Judgment reversed.