Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Smith v. Allwright
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Decision== The Supreme Court ruled 8β1 that Texas was indeed abridging Smith's Fifteenth Amendment right to vote, which was also denying his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. The unconstitutional practice of denying voters based on their race was discriminatory and Texas was held responsible, since it was delegating its authority to the Democratic Party. The ''Grovey v. Townsend'' decision was therefore overruled and Smith's previous denials were reversed. [[Thurgood Marshall]], who, at the time, led the [[NAACP Legal Defense Fund]] and would later become the Supreme Court's first black justice, represented Mr. Smith in the case. He championed this decision and later stated that this was his most important case.<ref>{{cite web|title=Landmark: ''Smith v. Allwright''|url=http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-smith-v-allwright|publisher=NAACP Legal Defense Fund}}</ref> ===Dissent=== Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion for the ''Smith'' case. The lone dissenter, he argued that the decision would soon be overruled. He stated that three cases had been ruled and subsequently overruled on this issue already, maintaining that the seemingly ambiguous nature of rulings in these cases meant that this ruling did not follow the historical precedent. He also argued that this case was different from ''Classic''; in Louisiana, elections are run by the state, making them state elections, but Texas party elections are run by the party, which does not put them under the jurisdiction of the state. Justice Roberts further contended that the decision "tends to bring adjudications of this tribunal into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only."<ref>321 U.S. at 669.</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)