Editing Smith v. Allwright (section)

==Issue==
''Smith v. Allwright'' questioned whether or not states had the constitutional right to deny voters based on party membership. The Democratic Party of Texas denied Smith the right to vote on the basis of his skin color. Smith was attempting to cast his vote for a Democratic primary in which candidates for the House of Representatives, Senate, and Governor were being nominated, in addition to other state officers. The Texas Constitution states that every person qualified by residence in a district or county, in addition to other factors that are not relevant, "shall be deemed a qualified elector" in Article VI, §2, and Chapters Twelve and Thirteen of the statutes require primary elections for Senators, Representatives, and state officers.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Texas Constitution Article 6. Suffrage |url=https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.6.htm#6.2 |website=Texas Constitution and Statutes |accessdate=7 February 2020}}</ref> The Democratic Party of Texas was a "voluntary association" and protected from interference from the state except "in the interest of fair methods and a fair expression by their members of their preferences in the selection of their nominees, the State may regulate such elections by proper laws," which is a right that is protected in the Bill of Rights of Texas.<ref>{{cite web |title=Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/649/ |website=Justia Law |accessdate=7 February 2020 |language=en}}</ref>

The party is allowed to determine its own policies and membership according to ''[[Waples v. Marrast]]'', and adopted a policy that all white citizens qualified to vote in Texas were eligible for membership, therefore allowing only white citizens to vote. Holding policies that only allow citizens of a particular race or color to vote is an inherently discriminatory practice. The Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments protect against such actions from any state. The argument, however, is whether the Texas Democratic Party is independent from the state and free to make policies as it pleases. Smith was not allowed to vote in a Democratic primary election on the basis of his skin color. He, the petitioner, argues that since he was not allowed to participate in a state election, the Party is not independent of the state. There were two conflicting Supreme Court decisions that were impeding the judicial precedent for this case: ''[[Grovey v. Townsend]]'' and ''[[United States v. Classic]]''.

=== ''Grovey v. Townsend'' ===
In ''Grovey v. Townsend'', the petitioner argued that he was denied a ballot for the Democratic party primary election, even though he is a lawful citizen of the United States of America. The petitioner was going to be absent on the day of the election and demanded an absentee ballot. The petitioner was denied the ballot on the grounds of a statute of the Democratic Convention of Texas which stated:

"Be it resolved that all white citizens of the Texas who are qualified to vote under the Constitution and laws of the state shall be eligible to membership in the Democratic party and as such entitled to participate in its deliberations."

This denial on the grounds of race and color was argued to be a direct and unlawful violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. Denying a ballot on the basis of the petitioner's race or color is legal under Texas law, but unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment states that no citizen, naturalized or born, shall have their rights infringed by any law, nor shall they be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any citizen equal protection under its laws.

The main question in ''Grovey'' was if a declaration of party membership equated state action. The argument of the respondents was that the resolution of the state convention limiting membership did not limit the participation of black voters, particularly the petitioner. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the respondent did not discriminate against the petitioner and therefore did not deny him any Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment rights.<ref>{{cite web |title=Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/45/ |website=Justia |accessdate=7 February 2020}}</ref>

=== ''United States v. Classic'' ===
In ''U.S. v. Classic'', two federal indictments were brought against six election commissioners, alleging conspiracy and corruption in the Democratic primary election for U.S. Representative. They were charged with miscounting and altering the ballots that were cast. The indictment was challenged because ''[[Newberry v. United States]]'' held that primary elections are not subject to the same Congressional oversight as general elections. Therefore, the question was if Congress is allowed to regulate primaries, specifically to protect voters from miscounts or altered ballots. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate elections, in addition to allowing Congress to choose which constitutional powers are carried out.<ref>{{cite web |title=United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/313/299/ |website=Justia |accessdate=7 February 2020}}</ref>