Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932)

U.S. Supreme Court, (May 02, 1932)

Docket number: 265

/us/286/73/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20016969
Id. vLex: VLEX-20016969

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Supreme Court - Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953)

U.S. Supreme Court - Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972)

U.S. Supreme Court - Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975)

U.S. Supreme Court - Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974)

U.S. Supreme Court - Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978)

U.S. Supreme Court - Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - John S. Trinsey, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of State, Board of Elections, the Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Arlen Specter, Anne Anstine, William H. Lamb, Elsie Hillman, Herbert Barness, the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania, Intervenors in Dc, Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, Lawrence J. Yatch, William K. Myrtetus, Don Walko, Billie Jo Herr and Anthony J. May, Intervenors, Intervenors, Senator Arlen Specter, Anne Anstine, William H. Lamb, Elsie Hillman, Herbert Barness, and the Republican Committee of Pennsylvania, Appellants in No. 91-1490, Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Casey and Commonwealth Secretary Christopher A. Lewis, Appellants in No. 91-1491., 941 F.2d 224 (3rd Cir. 1991)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - David Banks B/N/F Rosemary Banks Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Muncie Community Schools, a Corporation, N. Durward Cory as School Superintendent, Raymond E. Rothhaar as School Board Member, Jack Peckinpaugh as School Board Member, J. Wesley Wray as School Board Member, Mrs. Carolyn Kelly as School Board Member, and Samuel L. Reed as School Board Member, Defendants-Appellees., 433 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1970)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Paulina Perez Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jule M. Sugarman Et Al., Defendants, and New York Foundling Hospital and St. Joseph'S Home of Peekskill, Defendants-Appellees., 499 F.2d 761 (2nd Cir. 1974)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court NIXON v. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73 (1932)

[Page 286 U.S. 73, 87]

mittee to determine who shall participate in the primary elections. [Footnote 1] What was questioned in that case was the validity of a pledge exacted from the voters that it was their bona fide purpose to support the party nominees. The court in upholding the exaction found a basis for its ruling in another article of the Civil Statutes (article 3167), in an article of the Penal Code (article 240), and in the inherent power of the committee to adopt regulations reasonably designed to give effect to the obligation assumed by an elector in the very act of voting. To clinch the argument, the court then added that, if all these sources of authority were inadequate, the Legislature had made in article 3107 an express 'grant of power' to determine qualifications generally. There is no suggestion in the opinion that the inherent power of the committee was broad enough ( apart from legislation) to permit it to prescribe the extent of party membership, to say to a group of voters, ready as was the petitioner to take the statutory pledge, that one class should be eligible and another not. On the contrary, the whole opinion is instinct with the concession that pretensions so extraordinary must find their warrant in a statute. The most that can be said for the respondents is that the inherent powers of the committee are still unsettled in the local courts. Nothing in the state of the decisions requires us to hold that they have been settled in a manner that would be subversive of the fundamental postulates of party organization. The suggestion is offered that in default of in

[Page 286 U.S. 73, 106]

an untenable position by repealing the earlier act, and then declare the existence of party control over membership therein to the end that there might be orderly conduct of party affairs including primary elections.

The resolution of the executive committee was the voice of the party, and took from appellant no right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution or laws. It was incumbent upon the judges of the primary to obey valid orders from the executive committee. They inflicted no wrong upon Nixon.

A judgment of affirmance should be entered.

I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND, and Mr. Justice BUTLER concur in this opinion. Footnotes

Footnote 1 'We are bound to give effect to a grant of power to the State Executive Committee of a party to determine who shall participate in the acts of the party otherwise than by voting in a primary, when the Legislature grants the power in language too plain to admit of controversy, and when the determination of the Committee conflicts with no other statutory requirement or prohibition, especially when the Committee's determination makes effectual the public policy of the State as revealed in its statutes.' Love v. Buckner supra.

Footnote 2 Original Act. 3107-Rev. Civ. Stats. 1925: 'In no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas, and should a negro vote in a Democratic primary election, such ballot shall be void and election officials are herein directed to throw out such ballot and not count the same.'

Footnote 3 Article 3093a from Acts 1923. 'All qualified voters under the laws and constitution of the State of Texas who are bona fide members of the Democratic party, shall be eligible to participate in any Democratic party primary election, provided such voter complies with all laws and rules governing party primary elections; however, in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas, and should a negro vote in a Democratic primary election, such ballot shall be void and election officials are herein directed to throw out such ballot and not count the same.'

Footnote 4 Acts 1903, c. 101. 'Sec. 94. ... provided, that the county executive committee of the party holding any primary election may prescribe additional qualifications necessary to participate therein.'

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access