State of Alabama v. United States

Gallion, Atty. M.D.Ala.1961, Alabama, F. Ala- State of MacDonald Gen. Hall, Supp. Livingston, F.Supp. bama, Leslie 677. See also 188 Willard W. Bradley, Madison, P. M.D.Ala.1960. Gordon Robert Montgom- Alabama, Attys. Asst. ery, Ala., Gen. greater later, point As we out detail appellants. finding challenge Alabama does not this Perhaps more discrimination. even Davis, Atty., Mont- Hartwell U. S. significant, challenge does not de- Doar, Ala., gomery, First Asst. John perva- cree numerous and Justice, Dept, Rights Div., Burke Civil Marshall, parts respect. except sive in one Its Gen., Atty. H. Harold Asst. por- whole attack here is centered on the Owen, Rubin, Greene, D. Robert David affirmatively re- tion of the decree which Washington, Justice, Attys., Dept, D. registration quires that certificates be C., appellee. Negro specified applicants. issued Thus, RIVES, Before CAMERON purposes case this at Judges. BROWN, Circuit least, acquiesces in Alabama the correct- declaring which, of the decree after ness Judge. BROWN, R. JOHN Circuit discriminatory practices all unconstitu- prohibited, proceeds question presents wheth tional therefore case 1957,1 Rights require things. er, Alabama do these under the Civil Act brought by 1960,2 Specific notice was first taken a suit as amended Tuskegee (Beat 1) precinct Court where viola- the District registration affirmatively were most marked. The re- tions decree order registration Negro applications quires specified found voters Alabama of by days there on at least been discrimina- received two the Court to have Negroes torily of month and that the hundreds of because denied processed Subsidiary appearance on the list be to this then and color. race their simultaneously. procedural least six the rate of at the further question is basic Reg- assuming power provides whether, then that the to issue The decree one amandatory regular applica- granting injunction, hold voter must istrars Supreme Court, Pending (c). 1971(a), (b), review § 42 U.S.C.A. 1. Rights amended Act of (f). 1971(e) and § Supreme 2. 42 U.S.C.A. Amend- Court heid the and the It vacated ment as to this cause. effective 601(c), § Act 3. The Civil contrary judgments and remanded the 1971(c), expressly authorizes 42 USCA to reinstate the ac- with directions Ala- State of State. The suits Alabama. tion as party. Prior therefore bama 602, 604, had dis- District Court Amendment Supreme But 2d decided very for absence of de- cause missed questions us. none now before resigned. Registrars had all since fendants indiscriminately M.D.Ala., en- F.Supp. 4.We use term 1959. We 171 affirmed, Registrars compass Cir., 1959, the individual as well. F.2d though facts, regular reasons, For similar days monthly processing, in unchallenged, undisputed war- now order, colored expeditious white too, summary. they, appear- For rant a brief applicants in accordance specific will the illumine order without racial ance list to be maintained barrage. As Registrars the State whole use levels its discrimination. order, writing take with the must racially nondiscriminatory terms of the we tests pains to no criticism make clear that words of not to consecutive exceed directly Registration ap- of for not the State intended the from Constitution. challenging findings. do, twenty plicants Courts fact to be notified within are should, forthright days rejection and acceptance welcome the or of of the sharply application and, rejected, defined submission of serious where legal questions posed here of the kind An exact reasons therefor. elaborate encumbering by machinery process without policing fac- estab- continuous by disputes tual or earnestly how requiring collateral no matter lished. This is done willing- monthly report held. But the State’s to the Court of the dates acquiesce places holding ness to registration, in the District of Court’s voter findings name, every appli- does not make them less of race and date by received, facts. Nor does it conceal or shield them action taken cation Registrars, scrutiny very from may insofar as their detail and the date the certificate light meaning registration reflect of and neces- was mailed notification sity particular rejection weapon copy A fashioned sent. noti- Judge challenge rejection to meet accompany fication of is to monthly such report. facts. pre- As neat and comfortable decree also might voting microscopically be to view scribes that be records should agents open question State’s contention law, sterile examination of the judicial process requires neither the United ly then nor the States. a month- meaning report purpose Attorney covering effectuating guar- Acts as a means of much of the called data for in report per- antees of the the State. Fifteenth Amendment Judge mit it. What the ordered must be done measured in terms of what It is therefore evident that the Dis- Judge saw. thought trict Court it encumbent that Court, many the Federal and varied problem genesis has its ways, engage super- in a most detailed racial discrimination. It concerns voters day-to-day vision operation County, Alabama, Macon the most registration. Moreover, voter neither populous portion Tuskegee. of which is so, propriety to do nor the majority Negroes The ty in Macon Coun exertion, challenged. is here Tuskegee, live and work in which is is itself a import- circumstance of some Tuskegee large the site of Institute stating, ance. In so we mean no criticism Veterans Hospital. Administration urging objection of the State for its not Many Negroes these are associated recognize the first are here. We institutions, one these and a strategic reasons, for tactical large majority college of them have may have concluded that fire should high schooleducations. Of course Tuske target. on the concentrated one At gee stranger is no governmentally object time the same that attack— directed racial discrimination. Gomil mandatory reg- affirmative order to Lightfoot, 1960, lion v. parcel part ister —is intricate 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110. That effort— judicially machinery constructed to as- perhaps massive and more frontal —if genuine, sure continuous nondiscrimina- would disenfranchise successful those far-reaching struggle steps regis tion. That won were few who had imparts color needed and similar deal Here we with those neces- tration. sity join to feature under attack. that small band. to wish inevitably problem What of racial discrimina was done was meas- In the much, tion, tell ured the District often what statistics spectacu they respect are was undone. In listen.5 Here the most Courts lar. way Negroes certifying approximately effective avoid With 17% being white, qualified County population voters was to facili- have no Macon registration being Negro, 83%, balance, less than ties which the could take Negroes age voting This, place. having while nominal 10% excluding Negro registered nearly virtue of white and while 100% alike, way did are.6 not work that view white citizens nearly the saturated all evidentiary by The recited both details only adults, white of Ne- but 10% it and white witnesses made colored groes. prevailed This for much situation doubly these statistics were clear past.8 of the recent They also demonstrate not distorted. to And what was done likewise had figures time, that, at this these for least manner which measured major implication in their are reliable process was The whole was in- it done. disparity exist that such could not unsophisticated, patent, fected an alone, had causes chance that there pre- obvious double standard. Here the result, principal cause and that a this Negroes applicants ferment white over of conscious racial discrimination was handling physical routine duty impar- those entrusted with the procedure was more than an extension law. tial administration long of standing. social habits customs of Registration prerequisite vot- is a reg- effectively it denied Here perma- ing Registration is in Alabama. opportu- because denied the istration re-registration required. nent is register. nity to Registrars Registration a Board replete was with in- The evidence appointed composed three members Negroes stances in which number of qualifications pursuant law. The to state place were the first arrive at set forth in Alabama voters is Board, registration. however, implementing statutes.7 Constitution arriving sign applicants later white waiting requirements to the usual In addition position of list ahead of the residence, applicant citizenship, age, Negroes.9 lengthy questionnaire and must fill out Standing alone, irritating and as that he can read and write demonstrate any might might be, quite this sound Consti- Article machinery part of adminis- But this was but trivial. It is this tution. engine by which, pattern of dis- with became the occasional def- which tration apparent equality, toward erence crimination. opinion, F.Supp. example, 5. See, 192 in context com- 677 at 683- Court’s Juries, position and Grand 685. of Petit Harpole, Cir., 263 F.2d 5 States 71, opinion, District Court’s 8. See note 192 in footnote collected 13 at cases points F.Supp. at 677 out 77. functioning “There was no Board that during periods reg- 3105 from: showed white June 1946 to lists 1960 6. (18 registrants only Negro January months); February 1948 1133 but istrants Negroes (14 11,900 months) ; approximately March 1957 1956 De- out of (18 May age. months); voting All but 50 these were cember 1). (1 (Beat January month).” precinct Tuskegee No. waiting VIII, list was 1901 Constitu- referred Section wit- Art. opinion VIII, tion, District XCI Art. and the Court’s Sec- nesses Amendment Alabama, “priority sheet,” see, Title Sec- order as 181 Code tion 27(1). F.Supp. g., 677 at amended Section and occa- 26 as e. sionally “appearance provisions law list.” full text Appendix A to the District out as set being applic only completed months inequality was grossest sort of stages Indeed, ations.11 so situation critical practiced. For in the bad that on slow- the trial numerous witnesses the deliberate tied into point Again, could make all arithmetical done down. solemn, “mov dressing pain- was then the rate the Board the window ing” Negroes approximately staking, of a deliberate consideration —with getting voting. having far as the desk importance of matter per year years for would take over —it Presumably in of intensified because Negroes pri the some 400 on the current securing equality, there terest voter ority get opportunity sheet to the actual great upsurge in the number was a registration.12 apply Negro applicants In a brief in 1960. though As this discrimination was not period came to of time hundred several enough discourage or thwart effective put registration places and their Negro registration, greatest voter (see “priority note sheets” names on the disparity occurred in the substantive course, way supra). Of easiest handling Negroes applications for handling this for Board was to whom, working being up after face- least, occupied, ostensibly so that there Registrar, to-face with the the moment opportunity many for would be long of truth had at last arrived. Negroes proceed far these as as registration Though pre- actual interview. This tac the Alabama Constitution simple: scribes both white tic was applicants crude no assistance shall be ren- list; priority applicants were on first dered for save rare in- Registrars get many physical infirmities,13 would not stances the rec- Negroes things ord graphic lower-listed because it would showed par- two long applicants. take allel. On repeated so white one side was process, patient, for assistance to voters, This of course called specifically identified white laborious, slow, time-consuming copying many candidly of whom acknowl- long edged very articles of the United States learning his education and by whites, Constitution well was understanding permit intelligent as as those insufficient to Negroes up top few worked of the baffling sometimes Likewise, only questionnaire. appli Again, of the might list. one time, processed cant was at a and no deemed trivial were it not for the effort was made to handle fact given a number whereas white voters were simultaneously. system really frequent them determining assistance in so, So worked. much that the correct maximum questions, answers to unclear processed Negroes only number ever the 1960 Board not failed to receive assist- day ance, eight applications in one was five contrast to their rejected were slight times that in 1958.10 And in total num technical errors in answers to processed, just bers very questions.14 the Board for seven Forty applications 10. were time to (Beats) received on Precincts other than these, Tuskegee white, March 1958. Of 31 were example, Beat No. 9. For Negro. Appendix applica- All were white D to the District Court's accepted, only opinion, Negroes F.Supp. tions were shows, accepted rejected. (Tuskegee) were 4 were Beats and 9 had 3364 of the registered (Negro white) voters (during the 11. seven In 1960 it months registration days For these 1900. Beats approxi- operated), Board received only eight occasions, held were while applications mately at the Courthouse eight remaining comprising Beats up whites, Negroes. of 32 made No approximately votes, registra- seven applicant rejected, nearly white 50% meetings were held. were, Negroes only Negroes registered. XCI, were 13. Amendment See amendment VIII, Art. Sec. Constitution of 1901. course, part sys- slow-down Of Framing questionnaire was the defy intentional allocation tem disproportionate that will registration misunderstanding, amount of mis- misinterpretation, despite specifically, practices led and that evident These and shortcomings Registrars grading. past, in the as to rankest discrimination operate insubstantial, minor would now voter technical, undertake

Numerous registration pre without conscious race dis- red as off in errors were checked testimony In crimination. the face sumably for nonissuance the basis which, by word, though word witness wit- no such even voter ness, Registrars applicants. palpa- convicted accorded white treatment was discrimination, Negroes ble many cer- that, the Court was these than More tainly right thinking ac- undergraduate col postgraduate had tually, perhaps technically, degrees even lege responsible posi if not and held part of the State’s Tuskegee to demonstrate a or the Veter Institute tions at purpose past, to eliminate the Hospital.15 And to consti- ans Administration tutionally insupportable, But abuses. us described these crude efforts witnesses, where there should have been found added others some detail must be so, there was silence. So much not that aft- exist and District stating thought er that he challenged members of Alabama.16 here presented the current Board should undoubtedly most what was But witnesses, State's the State declined to Judge disturbing thing the trial of all to put stand, Judge them on the and the past events the recitation was not to call two of them as the Court’s things went showed that as time lips two, witnesses. From the getting worse, progressively were Judge could now see already what others disturbing thing was, rath- better. . knew,17 past that slight ray was more er, than the was not even that there a past. hope improve, It would was the conditions future as of well. question application asked, Negro climax or the applicants. was reached as to the two sought, not well is difficult if answers nigh impossible. Hence no criticism these, In addition the Government’s responsible Supreme Alabama Court — points correctly brief to other il- vivid preparing under questionnaire Constitution for Negroes lustrations. Fifteen who testi- — (see 7, supra) is note applied registration during fied expressed or meant. But much trouble period; registered 1957-1958 were three question 5 with which encountered subsequent attempts. Of the twelve read: register, who had unable seven completed you you letter-perfect had a at least “5. If claim that one bona Alabama, application State form. One of these had fide resident you degree, give on which a Ph.D. two the date claim to have had at least one year's Degree, such bona fide work on a become resident:-. Master’s three you (a) Degrees, When a fide had years did bona resi- B.S. two had become at least two -- County - college work, high : dent two were graduates, you (b) school a bona fide When did resi- two had at become least -- years high pre- two or school Ward work. dent -.” cinct disparity writing 16. These included by requiring Many copying lengthy acknowledged test white witnesses Arti- Constitution, they cles of the not know failure to did what this mail meant. registration certificates, notify hand, again failure to the other and time On time rejections applicants rejected Negro applications and the showed red like. marks, er- check for such penciled error Court, stated, Taft A Chief Justice 17. the exact date the omission rors not to “All be blind see what others fide bona resi- at time month Bailey v. and understand.” can see Drex commenced, discrepancy or between dence case], [Child Labor Tax Furniture Co. el question 1) (listed in and the dates birth 37, 20, 449, birthday applicants where 21st evident equated “[T]here But no L.Ed. 817. reason stat- fide residence bona pretend why should be more [Courts] longer adulthood, a e. i. one us unobserving ignorant than the or rest of minor. Enterprises Affiliated mankind.” Terry Waller, 1 1 Del. 5 A.2d Appendix District Court’s C 15.As out, points F.Supp. 677, 686, opinion, 192 Judge ther administrative past and little framed mulative ment for the future —that the only firm Supp. the Board’s led to “requires mandatory rolls mandatory decree now under attack: Supp. District whose specifically finds and concludes that dix and the failure to In the of the Constitution and laws of the spective applications 677, 682-683. gro citizens was and is in violation placing “In this plan opinion immediately law vote at the ‘E’ to this conclude “that this Court Negro could 677 at 682. prohibitory so as Court’s names impact in this nor Court light States.” certain past discriminatory practices see Act of that this case warrants citizens of Macon (1) purpose connection, the decree in evils. nature.” expectation the circumstances of of that the went opinion are listed on Implementing setting opinion to correct the Negroes decree but D.C., gross register In on, complete relief time for —under were Board eradicate as amended called for the abuses registration D.C., on the of their re- light D.C., these Ne- qualified Judge was F.Supp. County Appen- improve this, effect of decree voting 192 F. these nei- Act of 1957. In cu F. ment that "all citizens policy are otherwise any election section without joined as a and allowed to vote at all such section practice constituting * * * 19 The Act thereafter furnish tice forcement of this * * engaged es an scribes that “whenever may institute subsection tive jurisdiction” to” exhaustion of 772, 783. er remedies Moreover, that restraining order, “shall exercise the same without permanent mandatory language (a) of the State and the relief, adequate machinery the District Courts “shall have effectuating v. *.”20 The section earlier » (c) prescribes (a) affirmatively rights, distinction of proper * * * Wood, Cir., 1961, (a) rights subsection including * * * qualified by of such ” “ * * * the Statute proceedings "shall also be deemed administrative temporary which would policy. sweeping or other * the United States Fifteenth that the “act (d) proceedings shall be race, deprivation” any person for effective application * * law to vote As to establishes a civil action through act uses terms, sub Cf. United prescribing injunction, [or] defendant elections, order.” infringe Amend entitled * “or oth preven subsec regard strong prac color F.2d sub pre has en or a record, briefly this us, by summarized we signifi- language points several are of the clear view that this order was things. outset, cant At the allow- the power within the grant, of the Court to State, ance of a the suit direct that exercise of that was such, parallel as provision substantive .the eminently proper.18 discriminatory that acts or support To need conclusion we practices shall be “deemed Congress search no further than plainly State” reveals that aspects 18.As questionnaires, Applicants’ each etc., findings Judge dis- readily decree the fact conclude that crimination, findings. under- the State does not ample for bis basis bad challenge specifically take to the intrinsic 1971(a). § 19. 42 U.S.C.A. qualifications as to the merits of these 54 Negroes registered. 1971(c). ordered to be 20. 42 U.S.C.A. ground attack on the basic fhnt Responsibility Emphasis supplied. for order, not an Court could enter such expressly, vested suits such positively matter how established were Attorney General. qualifications of the individuals named. Nevertheless, carefully we reviewed policy thwarted should Act acutely lawsuit aware that rigid by many of even these activi- limitations inevitably relate to almost procedures, Congress expressly traditionally performed elastic which are ties govern- included by, stated that relief available for, true as a the State injunctions fact, then, “or other order.”23 mental function. voter the administration of injunctions Mandatory affirma or- aspects qualification voter or other of should act, tively doing compelling the of some performed be, dinarily is, forbidding negatively merely rather than agencies, obstacle be an not to State conduct, are continuation of a course of National protection to effective ago Long equity. tool of traditional federally consti- secured Government of may compel injunction we “an said rights. Indeed, the established tutional duty.” performance v. Morti Loisel rights certainty these in some mer, Cir., 1922, 882, 886. Cer F. agencies being led were denied tainly may command affirma order of this Statute. the enactment enabling where the statute tive action viewpoint provision of From does, provides, use as this one (d) promul- was more than a subsection injunction Al other order." “or concerning gation procedural aof rule language most identical as used here was declaring In of remedies. exhaustion justify equitable held an affirmative jurisdiction” that the Court “shall have money compelling payment order power, “shall Con- exercise” such by way of restitution. Porter Warner gress again purpose, where revealed Holding 395, 399, Co., 1946, necessary, interpose the Federal Court 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332. qualification process voter even though supplanting it meant successive prescribing In suit administrative, State, elements judicial, brought by sovereign equitable judicial machinery quasi relief, contemplates the statute review of adverse actions. The Federal full and elastic resources of tradi perhaps must—take ac- equity —and court of will tional be available showing tion on a though of discrimination even to vindicate the fundamental constitu effectually bypasses rights sought to do so tional be secured dispenses review a State admin- juris Once statute. has vested judicial istrative or tribunal. The Court, occa- of the cause diction a District necessity interrup- sional some such has, of statu such Court absence normal, ordinary processes was, tory limitations, all of the traditional therefore, contemplated and authorized powers equity. and facilities a court of by Congress. compelling An order Berry, a 495, v. Williamson 8 12 How. Registrar register specified persons, 1170; to Sprague v. Ticonic L.Ed. National degree different, only, if so in is 1939, 777, not Bank, 161, 307 U.S. 59 S.Ct. in kind. Where 83 L.Ed. 1184. federal a statute general right sue, a establishes to “fed decisive, And, perhaps even more Con- remedy may eral use courts available language describing gress in used broad good wrong to make done.” Bell open of relief to the Dis- character 684, 678, 1946, Hood, S.Ct. U.S. 66 327 The suit is described as v. Court. a trict 939; Dooley 776, v. 773, “preventive L.Ed. 90 relief.”22 proceeding 222, 762, 1901, 21 S.Ct. U.S. spelled 182 out in traditional is 228-230, especially 1074, “permanent tempo- see or include terms to may 762, L.Ed. 1074. This injunction” restraining 45 rary order. 21 S.Ct. body require of federal that a even that effectuation times make certain To permanent application ing 1971(c). 22. § 42 U.S.C.A. restraining order, injunction, temporary “may institute States 23. The United 1971(c). 42 U.S.C.A. order.” other proper civil action or preventive relief, proceeding for includ-

591 long ago recognized, As ‘there effectuate this Court to fashioned substantive law be ju grant Equity juris is underlying inherent in policy the Courts of * give Lin v. risdiction Union effect diction. Workers Textile 448, 460, policy legislature.’ 451, v. Smith Mills, 1957, Clark 353 coln U.S. 203, 195], 195, 912, 13 L.Ed. 923, [38 [10 U.S. Pet. 1 L.Ed.2d 972. 77 S.Ct. Jewelry, 123, 127].” v. Mitchell DeMario adapt equity aim is 332, 1960, 291-292, 288, 361 U.S. 80 S.Ct. judicial power situa to the needs 4 L.Ed.2d 323. public, in tion. Thus relief matters private, be rather than interests Here the matter is fulfill at stake ordinarily quite different from that policy wrought ment of a exten out after granted.24 Though language frequently Congress sive consideration of what might thought place employed thought contemporary to be evils litigant result on the nature of the —the agencies in of States sovereign agency or an of Government— spurious, sophisticated, sometimes some really princi it is a manifestation of crude, Negroes practices by times ple that the nature of the relief to be effectively were denied the vote by the molded necessities. Porter v. because color and race alone. Holding Co., 1946, 395, Warner 328 U.S. brought this evil which about the statute. 1332; 66 S.Ct. L.Ed. Hecht It is inconceivable that in its enactment Bowles, 1944, Co. v. Congress language meant this broad L.Ed. 754. The neces grant judicial less than effective tools course, encompass, special will sities Especially it.25 combat is this so since statutory objectives. “When Congress must have been aware that equity entrusts to an court the enforce rights context of racial civil matters regu prohibitions ment of in a contained mandatory being orders were latory enactment, issued and it must be taken to approved desegregation cognizant of school have acted the historic cases provide equity complete requiring re admission in accordance with light statutory purposes. lief specific plans.26 tory Judge qualifying orders Raines, have the effect of Bootle in United v. specified persons M.D.Ga., 1960, F.Supp. 121, 134, as voters both necessary properly employed. See, phrased it thus: g., testimony Attorney plaintiff e. General here hearings America, seeking give Brownell before House effect to the Judiciary, Cong., purposes Committee of the broad remedial 1st the Civil incorporated Hearings Rights sovereign Sess. into Act of 1957. Where party plaintiff, Before state nation is Subcommittee No. ia certainly spe- Judiciary, House Committee on sometimes more entitled to Cong., Sess., private pp. 571-572; might party 1st cific relief than a also re be. during Georgia Copper Co., marks bill, State of debates on Tennessee Cong.Rec. 12572, 230, 237, 27 S.Ct. equity frequent- 51 L.Ed. 1038. Courts of following many 26.See similar and ly go giving much further both and in affirmatively requiring more recent cases withholding relief furtherance of the Negro school of children. See admission public they interest than are accustomed Harford v. Board of Education Pettit County, Maryland, of go only private where in- interests are 1960, D.Md., F. 184 Virginian Ry. System volved. Co. v. (one pupil admitted); Supp. ordered 452 1937, 40, 515, Federation No. 300 U.S. City v. of Alexan F.Supp. School Board of Jones 552, 592, 789; 57 S.Ct. 81 L.Ed. United 1959, E.D.Va., Virginia, dria, 179 McElveen, supra.” v. 1960, 280, Cir., affirmed, F.2d 4 278 72 Judge Wright used much lan the same admitted); (eight pupils Thomp ordered McElveen, guage in United States v. E.D. County Arling v. Board son School of La., 1960, 10, F.Supp. 14, 180 affirmed 1958, E.D.Va., F.Supp. County, ton 529, 166 Thomas, 1960, sub nom. United v. nom., affirmed sub Hamm v. Coun 58, 612, 362 80 4 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 535. ty Arlington County, Board Vir School legislative ginia, Cir., 1959, (four certainly history 4 25. The 263 F.2d 226 bears admitted); pupils v. out the Groves likelihood ordered that affirmative manda 592 664, analysis, prior emphasis 201 especially F.2d

In the face of this on Judge urged by neither decisions controlling Alabama are declaration of the District register persuasive. most that a gro nor “direct mandate Ne- [to 1903, formidable, Harris, 189 be v. voters] [the court] Giles * * * 909, usurpation discretionary 475, 486, 639, U.S. despite 23 S.Ct. registrar.” dictum function of the somewhat celebrated While distinguished of Mr. tradi- decision could grounds, Justice HOLMES that "the several proceedings equity appropriate limits tional we think it to state remedy quite political plainly embraced a our affirmance that that wrongs,” judgment way to, does not stand in the was not and did intended granted.27 not, Wilson, language such, approve relief here As Lane v. nor that 1939, 268, 872, 272, proposition 307 83 59 commit U.S. S.Ct. this Court to 1281, setting mandatory clear, compelling L.Ed. made affirmative orders holding may unique in action Giles as one never be entered state attacking citizen, a voter a state voter officials to overcome qualifications invalid, statute established racial discrimination. simultaneously claiming to come a case, phase As to we Moreover, under phasizing em- it. as a decision must deal with one further contention judi- supposed immunity independ of Alabama. stated Whether political cial action because character- ently persuasive or rather more as rea controversy, istics of the the case falls why per son an affirmative is not decree Lightfoot, 1960, under v. 364 Gomillion mitted, imply seems Alabama 339, 125, 81 5 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d District Court limited the relief To added that itself Giles Rights may grant under the Act Civil envisaged by Congress done here was—as 1957 to remedies conferred great political “relief * * * from a —that adopt of 1960. We Act ” * * * given wrong is to “be refuting sound the Government’s answer legislative department this contention. government States,” 1960 Act added a new subsection.28 488, 189 23 at 642. U.S. at S.Ct. only up- play This subsection comes into finding by finding persons on a the Court of no discrimination in Ryder, 1959, deprived W.D.La., have been of race account 176 both Ventre v. (a) rights, 90, de- 97, Giordano, and that F.Supp. subsection such and Tullier v. pursuant pat- 1, 4, privation was Cir., 1959, or is to a 5 265 F.2d eliminates finding practice. tern or Once such decisions as irrelevant. That those person Brice, W.D.La., 1952, race Byrd made, only v. leaves is, upon sub- 442, Cir., 1953, area 5 affected his affirmed F.Supp. within 104 W.D.Va., 1959, lottesville, Virginia, Mary’s of St. Coun Education Board (twelve pupila Rel.L.Rep. 1958, F.Supp. D.Md., or Maryland, ty, Race admitted). Cir., 1958, affirmed, F.2d dered admitted); Thompson pupil (one ordered By supplemental briefs Alabama has Arlington County Board School v. County, legislative aspects emphasized his- E.D.Va., 1957, Virginia, 159 F. expressed by tory. concern But affirmed, Cir., 1958, 252 F. Supp. Attorney as to Giles Harris General denied cert. 2d do, not with the has to (seven 994, 2 L.Ed.2d 1065 an affirma- Act enter the 1957 admitted) ; Board Moore v. pupils ordered decree, mandatory but as to the use tive Mary County, Harford Education subsequent judi- voting to Referees F.Supp. D.Md., af land, discriminatory prac- aof cial declaration nom., Edu v. Board of Slade sub firmed Regis- Hearings on “Federal See tice. County, Maryland, 4 of Harford cation on the Sen. Committee before trars” cert. denied Cir., F.2d 252 Cong., Administration, 2nd 86th Rules L.Ed.2d 78 S.Ct. p. Sess., p. 51. 359 and admitted); pupils (two Al ordered City (e) § to U.S.C.A. 28. 1971. of Char Subsection Board of School v. len argument sequent an application, to order as to these indi- entitled this is that upon stip- viduals, judicial declaring qualified to vote determinations him (e) already qualified (1) state ulated in proof under subsection that he is subsequent vote, (2) to such been made.30 to law (a) finding by Court, de- has been he brings register second and us to the to prived opportunity to by last rea contention of (b) Alabama found qualified, or or otherwise vote mandatory son of this the actual any person decree act- qualified to vote prejudicially beyond expanded trial was ing element The time state law. theory upon which case was to provision pro- important. For this, urged In support tried. it is governs unqual- spectively persons found “ * * * never, stage there was at judicial subsequent de- ified to vote proceeding, any indication that the issued in a the United States cree suit being 1971(c). case was tried with the idea in Under its under U.S.C.A. § might possibly mind relitigat- that an provision -Order operation, this avoids Regis requiring ing entered Board the issue of racial discrimination register trars named respect individuals. individual of the with to each being case, opportunity Such object no found been the race to have given to the Defendants to test flows such discrimination.29 This from sixty-four qualifications of permits individu that this fact subsection als named applicant qualified the order of March to declare an Court any stage proceeding.” merely (1) proof that vote he (2) subsequent qualified, and to the There is neither technical nor substan- finding practice, pattern Court’s of a argument. tial basis for this It rests person qualified such has been found not (and either on an unwarranted unreveal- Registrar by the been or has denied the ed) assumption in the minds of counsel register. State, for the isolated, or on a few dis- jointed reaching colloquy important bits of between Far and as as this Court govern is, and counsel. complaint, The formal subsection does not the form precision may grant which had of relief which the detail well Court beyond required respect who, orig- under the to individuals at the Federal Rules, carefully spelled 1971(c) prayer suit, out a inal trial the section just (1) affirmative order.31 found been And to have de- unqualified Regis- briefs before us now show clared vote while trar, (2) pending the case solely to have so been declared undetermined completion color, after (3) testimony, because race or to be sought Government in qualified. What trial brief Alabama overlooks in invoking (e) procedures applicants 29. The subsection contrast voter between includ- ing appointment voting or use of have been or about witnesses whom Ref- briefly testimony given, rees. As has summarized at the one the out- set, Court, hand, this, doing rather than and those who are discriminated subsequent procedures established the initial enforcement es- pecially (e) pointed Attorney suit was tailored out and as to testimony. Hearings challenge General’s Alabama makes here. Eights Act 1980” before prayer in 11 numbered and 31.The lettered Judiciary, Senate on the Committee sought subparagraphs expressly an in- Cong., Sess., p. p. 2nd 56. also See 76. junction enjoining defendants from Specific reference was made the Ter register “failing refusing per- County (Georgia) Judge rell case which sons listed in ‘Exhibit A’ attached to this ultimately very Bootle entered the kind similarly situated, Complaint, others of affirmative described in decree permitting names and from their to remain hearings. Raines, M.D. qualified off voters in the current list Ga., 1960, F.Supp. 121, (Emphasis County, Macon Alabama.” supplied). decree of the District Court ex- refrained, pressly being, for the time Hence, true, of istered. the Court what ordered order. It an affirmative Registrars should done under whose the have course, the was not one that case duty. subject, of objective clear This was their the determina- immediate course, nonqualifica- to show the the State qualification or tion of the specified as to such discriminatees while that specific But such. voters as sought were other and scope there valid reasons the relief of the main by disqualification.32 If Alabama had such demonstrated individuals transcended named, effort spectacular evidence to the no as the been evidence have present request discrimination, ever an was opportunity made it or there victims of racial surprise legal so. to do ripwas basis for a claim of might relief, proper, that granted otherwise (cid:127)Affirmed. classes. well as individuals as Judge CAMERON, (dissent- Circuit that, Court More than the District ing). give oppor- the careful to tunity State actual I. why or all one to demonstrate rights Christian, In the civil quali- of the individual voters was not al., Cir., etc. et al. v. Jemison et voters, fied. initial order listed 64 F.2d this Court had it the before days gave but in ten effect question judgment whether which had show more that "one or which been rendered a Louisiana court state citizens become deceased said January 20, 1954, judicata was res disqualification possessed with some enumerating In Christian case. bas register of their and vote since date judg of its decision es that the former application applications.” The State judicata, ment was not this Court res persons did to 14 result this as with the said, inter alia: were that ten names deleted “But the reason finding demonstrates persons that that such “are Court's inapplicability clearly its most to us qualified not law now change is the momentous that oc- has registered to be as Alabama voters ”* * * curred in the constitutional County field of Macon adjudication law since first recognized it is that Once this charac suit. months Three after power ter of relief is within the Court's judgment court, in the state grant, that as exercise Supreme Court announced his- regarded- 64 is not to be un to these as toric decision Brown v. Board of startling. these, approxi Of usual or Education, 1954, appeared mately as witnesses and *. others, Judge as to all all heard precedent Brown that led to was the Registrars had, or claimed to have previously cited, decisions, had, qualifications to the before them as segregation transpor- local persons. of these The evidence concern facilities had been tation declared ing general practice followed, In other related unconstitutional. voter-witnesses, well these similarly has been law areas voting appli balance reflected transformed[Emphasis added.] questionnaires demonstrated over cation whelmingly prior to Christian de- months Two denial cision, had1 taken note of like apart explained from racial could stating: change, momentous way: put it another To discrimination. “Bearing mind that the statute discrimination as been no race had there application reg the Attor- persons permits such, would have these materials, exactly Judge same overwhelmingly used estab- evidence 32. The major less, Negroes, one no but more and whites and as to lished Judge excluded race as Bolcly on the the suf- basis of difference: acted Board insufficiency question- distinction. ficiency Bruce, Cir., Kennedy 298 F.2d qualification, testing In voter naires. ** * racy,’ published ney without iden- in 1969 to made General be tifying Mr. informa- wrote: Summers the the nature Attorney Gen- which the ‘“ * in- There is much to acting, simply eral make is we escaped dicate not that we have age day observation that this in governmental psychopathic mass dis- inspect the records effort outstanding orders are the having county disparity in period characteristics this *. eligible percentage of voters “ ‘May alarming repeat, I the most should citizens the races as between thing sim- simple about our situation is the not ex- frustrated ilarity registrar’s pedient of our attitude to that of the statement peoples who, nothing wrong.” of other times is that there [Em- eyes ears, phasis closed deafened moved added.] They to their own would destruction. majority, In the case before us the They not listen. would look. not seeking meaning discover the Nothing could turn them back. The involved, placed statute chief- its reliance warnings history, the admonitions ly upon a series of District cases Court they of common sense Judges * *’ portions written various heed. of the nation well ex- who are known witnessing today "What we are ponents that, deciding in civil the idea gov- a breakdown in constitutional rights cases, ignore courts should began ernment. in the 1930’s late teachings should, history as in- newly appointed when Justices on Christian, supra, accept in dicated Supreme Court of the United authority only decided cases since States embraced the doctrine that Taking change Brown case.2 note justifies ‘the end the means.' A towards con- attitude constitutional thought school of arose which has struction, distinguished a dedicated and amending held that the method of contemporan- editor wrote these words stipulated Constitution, in the filing eously with v. Jem- Christian document itself need not be em- ison, supra: judges ployed interpret if the light ‘changing law in the times “In from 1913 ” [Emphasis great added.] was a American—Hatton W. Summers, Democrat, of Texas. He eulogized II. week and was died last greatest House as con- one majority frankly The here defends its lawyers of all He stitutional time. attributing action to the of a words many years Chairman of the meaning them, statute a not contained in Judiciary prior Committee by embracing House jus- end thesis He had retirement. resisted as his question tifies means. No fact effort dictatorial of President nothing involved before us— ‘pack’ D. Roosevelt to Franklin Supreme question but a of law—whether the court In book Court. entitled jurisdiction below had under a statute Citizen and Private his Democ- mandatory injunction ‘The to enter the it did 2. and Bruce (Nothing cases and Christian said this dissent reflects majority opinion product slightest degree upon integrity here Judges Court. ‘‘mo- sincerity Judges four mentioned. change has in the solely occurred mentous words here used are directed traced, philosophy government. constitutional law” field of at their extent, large to four Justices Lawrence in U. David S. News and Supreme hard constitute the Report, LII, p. Vol. No. World of crusaders this ‘‘momentous core change.” challenge by was States. appellants started United did not issue. the The entirely argument basing involved The other cases facts, the their County, County, Ga.; assumption below Terrell Macon court the

on correctly that the Louisiana; in Ala.: in and one one the facts found all of might say point opinion, I majority never- Tennessee. on that Alabama. theless, devoting me to make that it seemed wise to half of justifies facts, length exciting certain the cases which that test recital of the brought act, I we under and that by this statement: use it the words ‘test cases’ because willingness ac- “But the State's was assumed that first the ones quiesce find- the District Court’s would we challenged, all be and that ings any less not them make does cases, law in make first the shield Nor conceal or facts. does it very strong that test be those cases scrutiny their insofar them facts, their and tried be cer- we light may very and reflect detail tain that those cases which were four necessity meaning partic- on and the strong started so we would be Judge first weapon ular the fashioned get could the constitutional challenge the meet of facts. legal questions strong with resolved might As neat comfortable as support. factual microscopically be to view State’s the things question "Once sterile those decided contention of courts, they hope process judicial the and I nor will be law, the neither they meaning soon—I will be purpose think soon— the of the bring Rights then we can other cases with a of ef- Civil as means Acts fectuating guarantees complete little strength the less concern about the the of permit in the it. the case. Amendment facts Fifteenth * * *" Judge [Emphasis added.] done What the ordered to be what must measured terms lengthy recital of the facts here Judge [Emphasis the saw.” added.] majority not, apprehend, I the will gentleman always boldly disappoint “hard the It has been true that interesting made this forecast. cases make bad law.” It is Attorney General of note I do subscribe to the thesis acquainted with justifies the end "What the means—that init fact and showed his reliance Judge ordered to must be be done given testimony January, him Judge measured in terms of what the page page Upon I960.4 simple I we here saw.” think have hearings report appears those legal question which well is stated colloquy: majority opinion,5 so first sentence Chairman, Attorney Gen- Mr. majority’s advert to discus I do not Rights ofAct eral, under the Civil my facts. conviction sion that, many if how suits facts, regardless court been instituted? jurisdiction without issue below injunction mandatory requiring Rogers. “Attorney Ac- a registration General Negro fifty-four appli tually Two five six. of them in- cants, my Rights I will efforts to a address Civil Commission volved question important of this involved action which discussion itself and four question presents Hearings wheth- Rules “This before the Committee Senate, er, Administration, Act of brought by Session, Congress, in a suit half as amended on a Second 86th general dealing Court District af- sub- United firmatively bills with dozen registration speci- every page Appearing ject. order Negro report hearings voters found published fied Alabama those discriminatorily heading to have been denied REGISTRARS." “FEDERAL their because race color.” (c) subparagraph heading a task This will Jurisdiction. reads: proportions because, small view majority holdings gravity relief; injunctions; “Preventive argues which it seriousness and the costs; party defendant.” them, statutes discussion detailed lawyer It would seem upon which States relies the United layman know would educated tracing their back a those statutes grant preventive the passed relief encom- beginnings necessary, however will be stop only would relief as such may many give reluctant ear be to something. somebody doing Black's reaching teachings history im Dictionary, page Edition, Law 4th portant conclusions. in- contains this junction. "Preventive definition: prohibits de- One which III. doing particular fendant from or act a commands him to it.’’ refrain from First, majority we take issue with the pos- statement that the court below The In- definition found C.J.S. power junctions sessed of tory manda- 4, p. 408, enter the words: § in these reg- injunction actually enter, it did or "Preventive Prohibitive or Pro- istering fifty-four Negroes, and the ma- hibitory Injunction. jority's support assertion that "To prohibitive preventive "A in- or conclusionwe need no further than search junction person a commands to re- the Civil Act The of 1957." doing frain from an act and neces- crucial are found in words U.S.C.A. § sarily operates unperformed acts 1971(c): prevents a threatened but non- " injury. existent * * Attorney General injunction compel per may “An a States, United institute do son to as well to refrain from or in name the United injunctions doing, and are manda a ceeding proper pro- civil action or other tory according preventive they or preventive relief, includ- command defendant to or to do, re ing application permanent an doing, particular frain from temporary or injunction, restraining * *” thing.”6 order, order, or other [Em- phasis lodged added.] only jurisdiction in the District Court Act was The italicized words seem to to be me power pre- to entertain an action for simple .so that even the uninitiated would ventive relief. Whether the mechanics argument doubtless wonder how an con- grant- preventive which relief was cerning meaning their could arise. restraining injunction, ed should be order, quoted jurisdiction words confer on the scope order, or some other courts of the not which was, grant power, order They theretofore existed. vest certain preventive. limited relief which was powers Attorney in the General which he The decree the District Court They not possess. did theretofore con- entered which is now before us grant stitute a to the federal pages pre- for review several contains them, which, they courts without quite few ventive relief items possess. jus- not It is too well settled to relief, part mandatory de- but tify citing authority that the United testing we are at the moment does cree juris- Courts courts limited grant any preventive relief all: they diction, jurisdic- and order, judgment except “It further such as bestows of this Court said de- upon and decree them. process Mandatory Injunction, ordinary which com- 6. The definition of remedial positive given performance p. of some reads: C.J.S. mands the mandatory injunction “A is an extra- act specialists brought the State trained by fendants into case [officials of days Government, find from the within Alabama] date of ten grant justify place some decree case which would ing positive permanent mandatory current relief com thereof, manding things rolls, copies to do certain official defendants following Negro defiance of action Con names of the gress citizens, limiting provided in one said the relief more of unless relief; preventive has pos- the Act to but it citizens have become deceased or completely failed so. disqualification to its effort to do sessed some only directly subject register and vote the date since applications application decided their District United States for the Western District [names omitted]. Louisiana, Byrd Brice, 1952, F. order, judgment “It is the further Supp. Cir., F.2d affirmed 5 that the de- decree of this Court Judge wherein the District wrote days the fendants within ten from registrar to would that he not direct the notify the date of decree all register any complainants in one of the that their above-named citizens us “A direct mandate from case: upon placed the names have permanent usurpation by dis be us of the * rolls registrar.” cretionary function the file that the said defendants [and] Considering with within the this Court itself Clerk commissioned days “fashioning body de- of this fifteen from the date in take the initiative writing reflecting report in cree a fit con- of federal substantive law” to its compliance part cept Congress ought, the above their with must of what or by * * *" have, this decree. used it to intended the words mean, majority 'brave the has made a complaint shows An examination of the The is that and brash start. trouble that, paragraph one, it was stated that Congress language used is not sus- brought pre- “to obtain the action was ceptible majority of the construction the practices relief acts ventive by it, essays place upon * and that the defendants carefully manifestly chose its words prayers is every for relief item of bring within con- effort statute only. in- preventive It is not relief stitutional limitations. any pleading timated asking Ala- to order the court Supreme The Court case most relied register any applicant do or to bama to upon apparently Government anything except to refrain acts from by majority Porter, Price Adminis- discrimination. Holding Co., 1946, Warner trator v. colloquys be- clear is further It S.Ct. L.Ed. nothing engaged applying and counsel that tween court The there was court sought. injunction prohibitory injunctive provisions but a the Emer- pause set out gency provi- But I will not Price Those Control Act. they colloquys quoted because (p. those the court were sions “* * * comparison importance 1089) p. minute 66 language thus: positive legal question of re- whether 205(a) expressly of § given mandatory injunc- be Court, lief could upon authorizes District upon by the grant relied showing, tion under majority. statute permanent proper ‘a injunction, restraining order, temporary ” order.' That every or other statute does not important to in mind at It bear granted pre- argument to be the relief restrict stage be- that the court grants relief. to the power ventive at or- low had no all to enter the injunction, issue kind except court to one der it did enter statute mandatory prohibitory. The supra. majority both quoted has strained conferring language juris- hard, highly of the statute with the assistance (p. m Porter report 30), In diction is, the District the Attor- same ney essentially therefore, question different from of a General answered the language granting in- senator in statute these words: junctive power the court in the case proposed “Senator Ervin. The authority before all us. Porter is no part embodies in amendments part case, jurisdiction in this because the provide 4 of S. 83 ‘district pre- the court was not confined to there could courts the United States ventive relief. jurisdiction given them exercise general majority regard par- adverts in terms without to whether congressional legis- aggrieved history to the ties any exhausted shall supporting position; lation as but it administrative reme- quote any legislative his- does tory. provided dies law.’ quotation you The chief I contained ask the Federal courts could if brief is Government’s from the state- not provisions those assume under by Attorney ment "of General Brownell determine in first by way injunc- person possessed what could done instance whether a process proposal.” qualifications tive registering the voting alleged describing witness was certain ? discriminatory having acts as been com- No; “Mr. Brownell. I think Mississippi. mitted in the His definitely answer is on that.’’ injunctive to reference the use of the [Emphasis added.] power contained statement: page Report At House 291 of “Now, we believe that if At- Representatives the House of issued torney General to in- April 1, (Eighty-fifth Congress, injunctive process voke the that the Session), following appears First registrar could have been ordered to statement: stop discriminatory practices these provisions “The effect of the according qualify these citizens * proposed the expand bill is not to Mississippi having law to without to rights presently protect- go process.” to criminal ed, merely provide but to Attor- Attorney plain It is what the Gen- ney right bring General with the doing compare eral was there was to pro- a civil or proper action all the registrar ease with a which could ceedings prevent acts relief discriminatory .forced to refrain practices give or which would rise to practices with the difficulties attendant a cause of action three upon process. resort to criminal * * existing subsections Attorney The General testified in more [Emphasis added.] hearings terms definite in the further page at report, And 11 of the same page before the Senate Committee.7 On following language is used: report hearings, € of of these he “ * * * proceeding succeeding “In a pre- civil stated: subsec- declaratory judg- amendment, ventive relief or for a ment, which is des- constitutionality ignated (c), provide of the election subsection does quickly practice remedy could be determined form of civil action appropriate relief part awarded. Criminal instituted on the ney Attor- prevent remedies best come after has the harm General to an act which Furthermore, done. deprive person all we know jurors privilege are reluctant —” or secured subsection Hearings Strengthen Rights Before the Subcommittee on of Persons Iiiglits Constitutional of the Committee Under Constitution and Laws of the Judiciary, Senate, StatesFebruary through Eighty-Fifth Congress, First Session on March * “Proposals Secure, Protect Rights given (a) This Act ps (b) Act. has 1971 amend- of Section Attorney application Gen- rise differences ed this bill. here. in the institute Such differences inhere eral would be authorized to * remaining attempt to construe for the United States fragments pro- comprehensive proper of a enact- repeal civil ceeding action ment, partial dismembered when preventive relief invalidity, loosely blindly any person engaged there has instance, grounds drafted in the first drawing believe that reasonable engage person * * on the whole act Constitution is about meaning. scope [Emphasis itself for its added.] Regardless particu- of differences in appears me, therefore, that what cases, however, lar the Court’s lode- congressional history is shows there adjudication star of has been that everyone clearly understood that the statute ‘should construed so being called Act of respect proper as to be- balance permitted pass court was one which tween and the the States federal only. preventive relief orders for government in law enforcement.' Screws United IV. [65 1495]. Only last term we our con- reiterated error fundamental committed viction that the Civil Act majority determination the meaning pow- ‘was not to be used to centralize fur us is before statute upset sys- er so as to the federal established consideration ther ” tem.' history statute, placing it in the belongs perspective proper background Further for consideration aggregation integral part of an as present by statute furnished popularly referred to as statutes language Supreme Court in United Supreme Acts. al., 1951, v. States Williams et 341 U.S. time, has, referred to the from time to 70, 74, 583, 581, 71 S.Ct. 95 L.Ed. 758: meaning difficulty determining “The dominant conditions statutes, they subjected were as these con Period were not Reconstruction enactment, process subsequent to the repeal, carefully to enactment of ducive invalidity being be declared legislation. and coherent considered Constitution, yond the sanction of the feeling Strong post-war caused in that court said re-enactment. What and adequate led deliberation and to Minard, 1951, 342 U.S. v. in Stefanelli phrasing of laws and careless loose 138, 120, 121, 118, 117, 96 L.Ed. 72 S.Ct. relating political the new issues. to us, (dealing, statute before not with the *** together, Although enacted statute) companion is illus with a but proposed by they were different : trative hastily They adopted. sponsors and little attention debate. in- received considerations have “These formed our construction of the Civil *»8 highly atmosphere. was followed in Collins inflamed It was theme 8. The same 651, 656-657, by pointed spirited Hardyman, preceded debate which v. 1253, susceptibility grave where its character out S.Ct. speaking abuse, its of another defects were soon real- was to court brought Acts: ized when execution about a related series among was last of severe reaction. “The Act provision establishing legislation on “The criminal to be based reconstruction conspiracies language indistinguishable province’ theory ‘conquered conspir period prevailed from that used to describe civil fol- judgment lowing to came War. acies the Civil Harris, Act, popularly [1 known as the Ku passed by partisan Act, 290]. held L.Ed. was unconstitutional vote Klux any Territory, State, or the laws V. any required Contrary majority’s be act assertion9 is or shall be (a) qualifica- prerequisite subsection done as or our research discloses U.S.C.A., voting, tion for such constitu- of Title Section 31, 1870, persons May tion or or officers laws first enacted Section, Session, charged per- Congress, or shall be with the 2nd 41st furnishing L. formance of Chapter duties in 16 Statutes at opportunity perform citizens an appears as follows: Section prerequisite, qual- such or become of the United all “That citizens vote, duty ified to every shall be be otherwise shall are or person give such and officer to any qualified by elec- vote at law to to all citizens of any State, people Ter- opportunity equal same and ritory, county, city, parish, district, perform prerequisite, such and to township, municipal- district, school qualified become vote without dis- ity, subdivision, or territorial race, color, previous tinction of or shall allowed to be entitled and vote servitude; any condition and if elections, at all such without distinc- person such or shall or officer refuse race, previous color, tion of or con- knowingly give omit full effect servitude; constitution, dition of section, shall, every he law, usage, regulation custom, or offense, pay such forfeit sum Territory, State or or or un- per- of five hundred dollars to the contrary authority, der its to the aggrieved thereby, son to be recov- notwithstanding.” [Emphasis add- case, ered action ed.] costs, full such allowance for clearly This section was directed to counsel fees as the court shall deem wards citizens of the United States just, also, and shall only,9a qualified who are otherwise or offense, guilty be deemed of a mis- registered by people state, demeanor, shall, on conviction its subdivisions and who were not to thereof, be fined not less than five qualified by any legislative, federal judicial, body. dollars, imprisoned hundred executive not less than month any one and not There not be should issue that Sec- year, both, May more than 1870, one or tion 1 of 31, the Force Act of at directed, was so when it is noted discretion of court."10 Section 2 Act of the same was directed solely registration, and alone to wit- changed slightly form, In a Section 1 ness that Section: May 31, 1870, Force Act of of and by (a) authority 1971,

"That if now or under the which is of subsection § U.S.C.A., any 42, constitution or of appeared laws Title in the form harmony Slaughter-House Cases, 1873, decision was in with that of 9a. important during 36, 74, 394, pe- clearly other pointed decisions Wall. by every Court, riod member of which clear out was a distinction there appointed by Lincoln, citizenship President between of the State and citi- Grant, Hayes, zenship Garfield or Arthur States with the of the United privileges clause of the and immunities Eights September 9, The Civil Act of being solely Fourth Amendment directed 1957, 85-315, Congress, Public Law 85th rights and alone to those federal created Session, 2004, 1st amended Section of Re- of the United the Constitution States (42 1971), by vised Statutes U.S.C.A. § privileges not immunities and to the and adding (a), (b), part subsections first arising from the of a citizen of relation (c), (d) presently (f), and what is of Ti- state. his (a) tle U.S.C.A. Subsection did change twenty-three the substantive nature of en- Sec- There were sections (42 May 31, 1870, tion 2004 Revised Statutes which were known U.S.C.A. acted 1971) § but new added a catch “An of Citi- line. act enforce Statutes, counsel fees as the court of the Revised just.” deem follows: 20, 1893, during September On "All citizens the United Session, Congress, qualified 63rd first law House otherwise are Representatives, 18, people Report any No. re- vote election at ported 2331, district, State, Territory, out Bill No. any House which county, city, township, later was parish, school enacted Febru- 8, 1894, being ary Chapter district, municipality, terri- or Congress, Session, subdivision, laws the 63rd 2nd be entitled torial shall repealed Act most at elec- Force and allowed to vote such all 81, May race, appropriate tions, 1870. Here are without distinction of excerpts Report, color, previous House said of servi- or condition page constitution, tude; custom, 1: any law, any usage, regulation or provided repeal “The bill for the Territory, byor or under author- of section 2002 of the Revised Stat- contrary ity, to the notwithstand- relating utes of United ing." . [Emphasis added.] bringing troops of armed to the election, 2006, place of and of Section Also, slightly changed form, Sec- 2006, 2011, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, May 31, tion 2 of the Force Act of 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2013, 2016, appeared as two sections in the Revised 2018, 2019, relating to the Statutes, form of Section 2006: -appointment, qualifications, powers, “When, authority compensation super- duties and any State, constitution laws election; visors of for the also Territory, any any laws act repeal 2021, 2022, 2023, of sections required prerequi- done aas 2024, 2027, 2029, 2026, 2026, voting, qualification site or relating ap- and 2031 to the persons constitution such or laws pointment, qualifications, powers, charged duty or officers duties, special compensation furnishing opportu- to citizens deputy marshals. prerequisite, perform such nity to repeal “Also for the of sections vote, qualified to or to become 5512, 5513, give shall person and officer relating 5521, 6522, and 5523 the United States citizens all punishment; to crimes and their opportunity per- equal same part also a of section 643 as follows: prerequisite, be- form such against ‘Or is commenced officer qualified vote.” come States on account of provisions 2006: act done under the and Section twenty-six, Title “The Elective charged “Every person or officer Franchise,” any or on account of pre- duty in the specified the with right, authority by title claimed section, know- ceding who refuses or person or other such officer give effect to that ingly full to omits provisions." said of the five section, the sum of forfeit shall supervisors appointment of ag- “The party to the dollars hundred something supervise to omission, presumes refusal grieved such supervision. right These to the and the an action on be recovered to right super- the to relate costs, sections case, and allowance with repealed un as declared Sections 11. A. to in the the vote zens of Amend Fifteen Union, under the constitutional of this and for other several States which, Purposes” many of ment: wore subso- — May and 1870—Sec. 2007 quenty unconstitutional, Sec. declared as shown Reese, v.S. Statutes —U. Revised in footnote 11.

(J03 super- deputy probably and marshals to conflicts that would arise visors Representatives between the au- vise the election and Federal Congress; point, (for initial and thorities that hour was reso- the therefore, right jealousies the power), as to nant is the de- liberately supervise placed elec- power the two into Congress, and if exercised, tion of members of distinct to be it hands proper be, the it exists whether is at the time in different same and ways; them to do equally improbable so. and it is power given legislatures that the times, notice, first, “We that ‘the States, authority of the as the best places holding manner elec- and suited in minds of makers etc., tions, primarily to' confided Constitution, provide ‘the legislature State; secon- of each times, manner, places of hold- and given darily, Congress. to the it is ing, etc.,’ intended, rea- without language and the ar- itself cause, son or be taken from them rangement show clauses two arbitrarily and assumed Con- times, manner, places, and this: gress ; that, too, when there legis- etc., prescribed shall be parts been no failure on the lature of each State. provide necessary States to ma- law, Congress may, by “But the chinery impropriety and no in the alter, make etc. time machinery provided. original primary, “The first is things “With this state of we find permissive and con- the second sought these statutes which are legislatures tingent. The Con- repealed create officers du whose gress original both have cannot it supervise, ties shall tobe scruti power primary the same act nize, every and watch act of the offi subject at same time. Such cers of the States. of itself would never sanc- conflict have been friction, history must create Nor we men tioned. can believe that country since the enactment draughted section intend- laws, these has demonstrated distinguish ed to respect. their unwisdom in this granting the Constitution in power guard, scrutinize, and in separate two distinct authorities spect implies power to correct or power co-equal same sub- over the prevent that which is scrutinized. ject we at the same time. Nor can power supervise implies greater absurdity than conceive compel doing pre or to legis- grant plenary power to doing thing vent which is latures of the the first subject supervision. How section, only abro- clause of then can the United gated and annulled second supervisors deputy marshals, the same clause of section. supervise an election under a law intel- “We can believe which it has not enacted or scruti ligence great (a which framed that in- nize condition of strument, avoiding any many suffrage States) careful 31, 4, 2009, 1870, May 6, 31, May 2. .Sec. 1870 —Sec. Re- 4. Sec. —Crim.Sec. Statutes; Statutes, 5506, 5508, vised Sec. Revised Revised —Crim. v. - Karem United Statutes, supra. Cir., Reese, States, (no appeal). v. U. S. F. 6 121 250 repealed, 7, 31, May B. Sections not but declared 5. Sec. 1870 —Crim. Sec. beyond 5509, the reach of the Fifteen Amend- Revised Statutes - United States v. 78, Cir., 1891, Sanges, ment: 5 48 F. affirmed on 31, 1870, 5, May 310, grounds, 609, 3. Sec. Sec. 12 144 U.S. S.Ct. —Crim. 5507, Statutes, Lackey, Revised S. v. L.Ed. 445. 36 - U. 1901, Cir., 114, denied, 6 107 F. certiorari 621, 925, U.S. 21 45 L.Ed. 1032. 181 604 government has of cism suffrage emanates when of supplied [Emphasis proposed it.” the State State itself 13 Report.] [Emphasis determine it? alone can 12 Report.] supplied therefore, 1 appears, It that Section suffrage right of “This leaves May 31, (Sec- of 1870 the Force Act of suffrage in of conditions Statutes) per- of Revised tion 2004 then, authority, By what the States. voting rights taining solely not to challenge officer, or can a Federal e., sections, repealed,14 only but those i. registra- polls or on otherwise at the 31, May of Force Act of Section 2 question of day, determine the tion 1870, Revised Section 2004 suffrage Constitution which the Statutes, remain Section 2004 of the solely to has left the United States Statutes, appeared in the Revised the States determine? September 9, up United 1957, States Code 1971, as Section Title 42 U.S. "Many im- statutes also these C.A. upon pose penalties election offi- States, the conduct cers Through debates of 195715 the heated elections, for a violation 1971, and I96016 the remainder of § more mon- ever a laws. Was (a) which is subsection 1971 now § proposition written strous orig- 42, U.S.C.A., remained as Title country? books a free statute inally enacted as the Re- Section power is a to make laws sover- vised Statutes. eign power. with it the carries through It was no accident that Sec- power punish for the violation 2004, (42 Revised U.S.C.A. Statutes laws, powers but the two must 1971(a)), voting applying solely, power cre- coordináte. repealed, was never but Sections 2005 punishment can ates the law inflict 2006, Statutes, applying Revised violation, power but can solely qualifying registering vot- rightfully punishment for the inflict ing voters, were. The reach of law which never violation Fifteenth Amendment17 was never it, attempt To as has made. apply registration, meant to but was only past, resulted done in the has only dis- protect denials, irritation, contention, and criti- day argue 17.It comes too late p. 12. Ibid. 6. that Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes p. 7. 13. Ibid. 1, 4, in Article finds substance “ Section * * * Times, Places Manner 2004, 5507, 5508, and 5509 ‘‘Sections

14. * * holding * Elections or Sec- left, all Amendment, tion 1 of the Fourteenth 1900, Lackey, Cir., v. United “ * regarded section 952, 969, grounds, on other reversed F. anything more than a declaration of 114). supra (107 F. amendment, of ” fifteenth effect Report 291 House 85th See leg- “the Session, April 1, 1957, Congress, 1st upon subject voting at all islate Congressional and Adminis- U.S.Code purely entirely state at pendent elections is de- News, 1959, 1966, p. see also trative Hearings the fifteenth amendment. the Subcommittee before Reese, 214, United States v. Rights, United States Sen- Constitutional' 563; Cruikshank, v. United States L.Ed. Session, Congress, ate, 1st on Feb- 85th 542, [Emphasis 588.” L.Ed. 20, 21, 26, 16, 18, 19, 27, 15, 28, ruary v. added.] Karem United 4,1, March Supreme Cir., F. 254. The recently Report Congress, reached con- has same 86th House 16. Se'e August 20, Session, 2004 of that Section the Revised clusion and also 1st solely upon Fif- based Hearings the Committee on the Statutes before Amendment, Senate, Judiciary^ teenth 86th 1960, 17, Raines, 25, 28, 29, Session, 362 U.S. 80 S.Ct Congress, March 2nd 519, Congressional L.Ed.2d 524. and Admin- U.S.Code 1960, News, p. 1925. istrative guaranty protection the color, tional tinctions, of race or because already No new had. such as he vote. necessarily by it. voters made were VI. Indirectly may ef- had have it Supreme de- A of the review fect, increased it because propriety demonstrates the cisions entitled number of citizens repeal Session of Second suffrage the Constitution Congress, and constitutional 63rd lack of States, operates for but it laws authority here. through all, purpose, at if Happersett, In the Minor v. laws, and not state 1876, (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 88 U.S. * * * directly upon the citizens. sought 627, privilege to woman Amendment,18 vote under the Fourteenth think, clear, therefore, we is “It upon privileges immunities based not added Constitution has thereunder, clause such contention right privileges suffrage to the rejected by Supreme was Court with citizenship they and immunities of following language (88 162): U.S. adopted. at it existed the time was (cid:127) inquire proper it This makes "The Amendment did not add to suffrage was co-extensive privileges whether and immunities citizenship at of the States with simply citizen. addi- furnished question 1943, any rights, privileges, Hughes, den v. 1. 64 U.S. S.Ct. immunities, protection 397, vote 497. This case was de L.Ed. subsequently so-called election under Article cided to United States v. federal Classic, I, 4, supra, Section Section 1 Four- and Mr. Justice Stone Amendment, surely case, teenth never arises in view aware of the Classic brought previously written, of the fact that this suit is sole- which he when he ly Hughes under the Fifteenth Amendment and wrote decision. 2004, Statutes, of the Revised as amend- (2) process The due clause does not 1960, ed in 1957 and which are directed political privileges, secure Snowden v. to state elections. Hughes, supra. legislate un- (3) equal protection Under clause 4, I, der Article Section of the Consti- nothing for “There is to show “ * tution, respect congres- elections voted at than were other slate ” * * * sional elections is directed ” * * * elections, [Emphasis added.] “ * * * protect such elections- Cruikshank, 1876, United 542, v. 92 U.S. they violence and because fraud 556, duty pro- “The so elections far as federal federal tecting enjoyment all its citizens in the thereby directly chosen, officials are rights equality originnlly of- an as- * * * very that, is obvious it furnishes sumed the States and it remains purely reason for interference at a Harris, 1883, there.” United States v. [Emphasis state Lackey election." added.] 629, 106 U.S. 27 L.Ed. 290. States, Cir., v. United F. “The case [United Harris] States v. agreement This is in 117-118. with clearly distinguished from the case at bar Classic, 1941, United States v. * * officers, States, not of the United 61 S.Ct. 85 L.Ed. 1368 which State, but of the laws solely dealt and violence and fraud egual protection they which were not racial denials. alleged deprived, to have been were the Although what follows in the residue only.” [Emphasis laws the State add- directly this note does not relate to the Logan ed.] Amendment, important Fifteenth it is 36 L.Ed. 429. 12 S.Ct. provisions bear in mind that of Sec- equal protection “A construction tion 1 of the Fourteenth do reach to * * * find a violation of clause state elections: right every departure state federal (1)Under privileges and immunities ”* * * state law [Em- “ officers phasis clause, right vote Hughes, added.] Snowden v. su- election of state officers is a pra. privilege citizenship, of state citizenship placed not a national the Four- alone limitations protected privileges and immuni likewise restrict Amendment teenth [Emphasis ties added.] clause.” Fifteenth Snow Amendments Fifteenth was, (92 214, 216) adoption. If it held Court the time its of U.S. argued 2004, (42 that may U.S. then it with force be Revised Statutes rights suffrage 1971(a)): C.A. § one of the citizenship, belonged and “ * * * right, simply declares enjoyment citizen of which providing punishment for without if it was protected. But must be [Emphasis its added.] violation.” propriety contrary not, the with be assumed. Court further held Section May 31, 1870, Force dealt Act of those “Upon an examination qualifications with in no State we find that Constitutions concerning as this was a case the receiv- 'permitted vote. all were citizens ing counting votes, Section who determined Each State for itself 1870, 31, May has Force Act of power. should have that application Here to the case at hand. language “Certainly, (92 con- is 216): can of the Court U.S. 214- if the courts settled, any question sider years nearly ninety For one. 31, May (Act “The 2d upon section people acted idea 1870) provides punishment for the Constitution, the citizenship, it when conferred charged duty officer necessarily con- did not furnishing oppor- of tunity an citizens right suffrage. uni- If fer perform any Act, which, long continued, can practice, form State, the Constitution or laws im- of so settle portant construction qualifica- prerequisite is made an Consti- instrument voting, omit to shall con- tution of the United States give all citizens is, certainly fessedly it has been most equal opportunity the same and province is to decide done Our here. perform prerequisite, be- is, not what what the law to declare race, qualified come on account of [Emphasis added.] be.” should previous color or condition of servi- tude, applicant. reaching Court, does not Supreme after apply inspectors privileges include under the this conclusion election, only duty whose it is the Fourteenth immunities clause receive and count the citi- Amendment, votes of un- conclusion came to zens, designated by voters, Amendment, law as der the Fifteenth already qualified who have become Reese, 1876, 92 U.S. of United States v. [Emphasis defendant, vote at t/ie election.” 563, 214, where 23 L.Ed. elections, others, inspectors added.] Reese, charged with the refusal crime of were Blacker, In the case McPherson v. person accept vote of a count the descent, municipal U.S. S.Ct. election at a African question the court had before it (42 Revised U.S. Statutes under § Michigan Statute, a certain whether set- (a)) that : C.A. § voting ting up presidential elec- tors, was in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment does Fourteenth suffrage upon Fifteenth Amendments. The not confer that such not in violation of anyone/’19 held the same effect see United States 19. To itself considered Amendment has been Harris, supra, Bowman, placed and James V. and the limitations this court same Bowman, supra. provisions.” James v. 47 L. Ed. 979.

(JQ7 appellant, Fif- Pope, comply Fourteenth nor Amendment refused to following using Amendment, registration Maryland the brought procedure teenth language: declaring action regis- refusal of the board to ex- “The Amendment Fifteenth ter him was in violation of 1 of Section empted of the United States citizens the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court from discrimination the exercise (193 621, 632, 633, 573, U.S. 24 S.Ct. the elective account franchise 575) set aside these contentions and race, color, previous condition set following forth the appropriate as the right to vote in servitude. The requirements registration: States, but the States comesfrom the right pro- exemption from the privilege “The to vote from comes State hibited discrimination given by is not the Federal has not The first Constitu- the United States. tion, granted the Con- its amendments. secured privilege It States, springing stitution of but the United citizenship of the v. United last been. United States States. has Happersett, Cruikshank, [,23 162, Minor v. L.Ed. Wall. U.S. may [22 L.ed (23:588); 627]. v. not be refused 588] Reese, race, account [,23 previous 563] L.Ed. color or (23:563) servitude, condition of but it *. does not follow citizenship from mere right to to be vote intended “The words, States. In other right protected vote to the refers privilege to vote in a State is within established laws and con- jurisdiction itself, of the State stitution State. There is no to be may exercised di- color the contention that under rect, upon such terms as to it the amendments male inhabit- proper, provided, course, seem being the State ant citizen no discrimination is made between from the time the United States has individuals violation the Fed- right majority of his presidential to vote for eral might Constitution. The State [Emphasis electors.” provide persons foreign birth added.] being could vote naturalized, without In the case Karem v. United and, as stated Mr. Chief Justice (no noted) appeal 121 F. inWaite Minor Happersett, supra, v. Appeals Court of the Circuit [21 Wall. 22 L.ed 627] held that: Sixth Circuit persons were allowed to vote in sev- right to vote affirmative eral of the States having de- *** dependent upon is still clared their intentions to becomeciti- secured the Constitution and laws zens United States. Some state, of the state permit vote; women to others prescribe being qualification privilege. refuse them State, A only particular.” limited one far as so the Federal Constitution is [Emphasis added.] concerned, might provide by its own having Supreme Court, constitution and laws that concluded none but right native-born per- citizens that the vote should emanates from the vote, government, mitted to as the states and not the federal Federal Con- qualifications regis- right stitution does held that the not confer has qualified persons suffrage belongs upon any one, tration also and the con- exclusively to the states. ditions under which that is Pope Williams, In the case of be exercised are matters for the * * prescribe, alone states by Judge Judge Day, 20. This case was decided Lurton and who later became Justices of the Supreme Court. ***** one the elector must be VII.

cussed clusion stated: approval Northampton Ct. Commissioners, (360 claim the v. voter.” entitled coming provision ute. of the Federal Constitution conditions Sup.Ct. 783, have broad declaration suffrage Williams, [24 “We Templeton, here) Supreme in the (Id., *. are at into L.Ed.2d to may of the state statute right many pp. unable to vote under under which has reached Id.) of the intent of powers County the State recent case 50-51, 185 U.S. 574] to L.ed. See also exercised, Pope be to determine the long see Board of 79 S.Ct. registered the state stat where the Court (referring before older cases 487, any 1005, the same U.S. [622], 633; Swafford violation Lassiter v. 491, right at for person he can held to Election 1007] p. as a the [22 the with 989) con- dis- S. tives, fifth but and this bill as amended the Judiciary had identical tory part been IV —To Provide Means of Further Secur- an amended form. HR came Public Law 85-315 of the to do Act in the found tration” was Congress ing utes, 42 U.S.C.A. 1957, p. Congressional A brief look at what What Senate 6127, finally Congress, prepared by only favorably passage helpful. Act of 1957. At the same 707 this Protecting at that April enacted with of Section reported Congress did, the House of not used one time and Administrative sections known of the Act voting. First It seems clear to the House for considering constituting 1, The Committee of the time did not think that the administration September 9, 1957, These Session, 1971.22 the became Right reported21 passed of 1957 therefore, bills Revised Stat- Congress several word the amenda- Representa- U. had 1957, the Civil Eighty- S. S83, “regis- will be action, Vote.” News, “Part time, bills, Code both HR did. be- Report 291 of House of No. Commissioners possessions, the Territories or 21. See Eighty-fifth any general, special, Representatives of at Con- or solely primary part gress, election held or in Session. First purpose selecting electing any or IV—To Provide Means Fur- “PART such candidate. Protecting Right Securing and ther “ any ‘(c) person engaged Whenever has To Vote grounds or there reasonable to be- Re- 2004 of the 131. Section “Sec. any person engage lieve that about 1971), (42 U.S.C. Statutes cised amended any practice act or which would de- as follows: any any prive person right other or or “(a) line said the catch sec- Amend privilege (a) secured subsection ‘Voting rights’. read, tion to (b), Attorney may General institute present Designate “(b) text with States, for the United or in name symbol ‘(a)’. the subsection the United proper proceeding including civil action a for or other immediately following Add, “(c) preventive relief, text, present new subsections four read application permanent for a as follows: temporary injunction, restraining or or- der, any “ ‘ proceeding or other order. In acting person, (b) No whether hereunder United States shall be lia- otherwise, intimidate, shall law or color of private per- ble for costs same as a attempt coerce, intimidate, threaten, threaten, son. person other or coerce interfering right “‘(d) purpose with the The district courts jurisdiction person proceed- to vote or vote States shall have such of as may choose, causing ings pursuant oth- instituted to this he section for, person for, or not to vote to vote shall exercise the same re- without er any President, gard party aggrieved for the office of whether the candidate shall elector, President, presidential Mem- have exhausted administrative or oth- Vice Senate, provided by or Member er remedies that ber ” Delegates [Emphasis Representatives, law.’ added.] House of registration, contended, powers right now with deal conferred It had the language already jurisdic- recognizing Act included registra- grant tion in tion, deal courts to with did Fifteenth Amendment meaningless right anyone, con- act securing Department cerning solely Justice to induce itself to amend so include the 1957 Act as to elections to vote state registration. denials. racial paragraph (b) men- The first last Act Subsection the of sentence of times, by (e) added of subdivision at least four tions “vote” § the word Congress 1960, provides: the in and never hints that Congress. contemplation the within the subsection, “When in the the used given injunctive power to district neces word ‘vote' all action includes by (c) with courts privileges Section dealt alone sary to ing but not limited vote includ make a effective by (a) and secured Sections to, registration (b). by required or State law other action g * therefore, beyond prerequisite me, to It seems clear votin language [Emphasis Act added.] doubt that the the 1957 everything was done in con- which plain registration provi- It is that passing it, particular- with the nection application only proceedings sions had light ly when it in is construed (e). The instituted under subdivision history, applied voting its alone and Government, brief, this in its invited registra- application had no whatever to accept thesis, Court to and the ma- interesting is tion. It to note that the jority accept did it.24 complaint Government started in out its circumstances, Under these is diffi- it asking here relief under both the 1957 cult to understand action of De- During Act and of the 1960 Act. course partment presenting, of Justice in battle, mended Government passing, Rights in the Civil placed solely hold and its reliance already, by if Act of 1960 the court was Act, majority the 1957 and the followed 1957, given jurisdiction Act of course, doing committed, that and in so registrations, deal with voting. as well as with my opinion, in clear error.

VIII. IX. strongly length conclusion is justified This buttressed of this dissent is by very Department only by my majority fact that the conviction that dealing pressed opinion probably Justice for a new Act strikes the most vital registration, Congress point relationship with that between passed Rights If, the 1960 Civil Act. State and Federal Union. Unless argues: (e) precede Its brief in subsection vided in (c), Act of 1960 a of an action under adds stitution section (subsection (e)) being part language new subsection a § of its opinion: 1971 of Title 42. The subsection comes play only upon finding by into a sought single “Plaintiff to combine court, in a suit instituted under 42 U.S. single hearing action the action 1971(c), any person § C.A. that has been contemplated proceeding by or subsection deprived on account of his race or color (c) §of Title U.S.C. with the any right privilege by or secured sub- by contemplated (e) proceeding subsection (a) deprivation section such that noted, is the same statute. pursuant pattern practice or is to a however, proceeding estab- * *_>> (e) lished must subsection there been, instituted, finding by States The United District Court before Mississippi person deprived the Northern District that a has been the Court Dogan, F.Supp. States v. United race or on account of color recognized tacitly (a) privilege subsections sub-section secured (c) (b) (a), applied solely [Emphasis of this same added statute." part.] pro voting, and held that the findings throughout history. Any pro- our important such of the elective functions change only accomplished their writ- should be cess reserved States government amendment. compact constitutional ten with the central them, actually are be retained start- “Woodrow stated the Wilson we government which form of (Con- ing point me said when he longer aspect exists. have lived no United stitutional Government sovereignty at- cannot the dual 183-184) pp. ‘the Judges some tacked under the theories of possess course portions that those Constitution government anywhere exer- has ever subjects as com- deal with cised, only except powers which those outmoded merce between Con- their own constitutions or the changed conditions unrealistic States ex- stitution Age. of those the Jet The selection by plain plicitly inference with- fundamental, govern who shall responsibility govern- ordinary They hold. are the this selection country; the federal ments of lodged exclusively Has in States. only government is instrument its tending argument anybody any * * * advanced particular purposes.' changing prove have conditions that sovereign po “The notion that the illogical important func- this rendered pro must its find of States sition government? heard I tion of have of a transient the will tection in majority it. foreign thoughts emanating Con- negation a our constitutional and system. gress, length supra, reproduced show at vital will often be re There definitely participat- who that those gional represented no interests and in the Between the States Congress. ed War majority in The Constitu were, designed keep sons than decades their less three the balance tion was ending than after its more convinced the Nation the States and between Republic legislative remain ever could con outside the field of strong rights by preserving only and troversy. [66 S.Ct. TP. powers of the in the business p. 320]] Partnership which has commanded “ * * * a The Constitution is approval universal admiration and ” * * sovereigns. compact between The fact mankind. those p. 320]] S.Ct. [66 [P. by piling gov- so debase states would Ohio, ap Justice Chase of Chief top government on in ernment Wash- Lincoln, speaking pointee of President foi ington, embracing themselves date as came from a no one of whom Con a court philosophy pre-horse-and-buggy- State, in used these words Texas federate days. White, 725, 19 L.Ed. Wall. expressions recognized Witness the 227: important subject. on this “liberals" already had occasion “And we Douglas, Connecticut, Mr. Justice time that remark ‘the to people having dissenting New York v. compose state, state each 310, 319, government, and its own en- (1944), L.Ed. 326 wrote: all the functions essential dowed *** “If, independent separate federal tax exist- activity ence,’ that ‘without the state were sustained states un political union, it discriminated could be no such less State, there body then United States.’ Not constitutional rule therefore, only, be fashioned can there be loss which would independent separate sovereignty au- undermine through tonomy the states their it has understood Constitution, first establishment of it was the but union may supremacy over the of the national unreasonably said not be police states, So it local authorities. preservation Russia, govern- so has been their the' ments, maintenance * * design I state. totalitarian are within as muéh safeguard of our believe that and preservation care of the Constitution limiting any liberty national lies of the Union investigative organiza- policing govern- maintenance of the National tion, number first all to a small Constitution, in all ment. The secondly strictly offenses, federal provisions, to an indestructible looks non-political *. ones union, composed of indestructible states.” long “But I think in the run the transgressions liberty by Fed- Finally, us who I think those of Government, all-power- eral with its speak in feel that wfe can with such organization, ful much more rights field fallible assurance in the civil to be feared than those of the several ponder Mr. well to would do the words states, greater capacity which have a (a upper Justice- Jackson “rebel” from for self-correction.” State) New York his third Godkin These words were written but few prepared delivery to the Lecture participated months after he had in the Harvard Graduate Adm School Public Certainly Brown decision. no one would pages From inistration.25 70-72 question probably that he had the best booklet these words are taken: generation chance of man of his drawing "The Court has been into system evaluate the American and com- system the federal and more more pare governmental systems. it with other agencies control federal over lo- It is necessary not conjecture what agencies. police cal I have no doubt thought he would have of the unwar- guilty latter are often ranted distortion majority serious invasions of individual Congress’ here, spec- words and of the rights. But there are more funda- bright of the young tacle invasion questions mental involved the in- men taking place from North which is terpretation antiquated, cum- today. in the South providence A kind bersome, vague rights civil stat- spared pain watching him the groups give Department utes which highly representatives trained prosecute Justice the state government, brought central from its prosecutions officials. [Such seat Washington, backing progress at this moment.] If ponderous up their country cameras Department prose- must Justice courthouses in the rural sections of the officials, cute local FBI must in- South, photographing the records of the them, vestigate agency local sovereign haling States and their elected investiga- subject to federal officials into court to answer the varie- discipline tion, inspection, gated charges is a made men do who agency. At trial turning upon free his creature understand —the great Goering, rend the creator to it—and all can- with the Hermann Judges ought sanction of solemn steps by dor, which the related the understand. complete party obtained domi- Nazi Germany, respectfully and one dissent. I nation suddenly Supreme died Jackson the Amer- October 25. See Library System Government,” 1954. He had worked for several hours ican catalog day In third Godkin card No. 55-9896. Lecture be- foreword, his death “Mr. Justice fore is stated:

Case Details

Case Name: State of Alabama v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 22, 1962

Citation: 304 F.2d 583

Docket Number: 19051_1

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.