Mary Fishe Bell v. J. W. Southwell
1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6731, 376 F.2d 659 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court has the equitable power to set aside a state election and order a new one when the election was conducted with gross, state-imposed, and state-enforced racial discrimination that infected the entire electoral process.
Facts:
- On June 23, 1965, the Justice of the Peace for the 789th Militia District in Sumter County, Georgia, died, creating a vacancy.
- The County Ordinary, Horne, called a special election for July 20, 1965, to fill the position.
- Mrs. Mary F. Bell, a Negro woman, was a candidate along with J. W. Southwell and four other white men.
- On election day, officials maintained segregated voting lists and separate voting booths designated for 'white males', 'white women', and 'Negroes'.
- Several qualified Negro women voters were denied the right to cast ballots in the 'white women's' booth.
- Representatives for candidate Bell were barred from observing the voting, and police allowed a large crowd of white men to gather near the polls, intimidating Negro voters.
- After respectfully refusing to leave the 'white women's' polling booth, Mrs. Bell and others were arrested by a deputy sheriff acting under the Ordinary's directions.
- J. W. Southwell was ultimately declared the winner of the election.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Bell and other Negro voters (plaintiffs) sued J.W. Southwell and the County Ordinary, Horne (defendants), in the United States District Court.
- The plaintiffs sought to declare the election void, enjoin Southwell from taking office, and compel a new election.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court treated as a motion for summary judgment.
- In parallel cases, the same District Court enjoined Sumter County officials from maintaining racial segregation at the polls in future elections.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants in this case, refusing to set aside the election.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court have the equitable power to set aside a state election when it was conducted with gross and pervasive state-imposed racial discrimination, even without proof that the discrimination altered the election's outcome?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
Yes, a federal court has the equitable power to set aside a state election conducted with gross and pervasive racial discrimination. The court rejected the district court’s reasoning that it lacked the power to void a state election and that plaintiffs had to prove the discrimination changed the outcome. The court reasoned that certain state-imposed discriminatory practices are so fundamentally unconstitutional that they invalidate the process itself, irrespective of the final vote count. Citing Anderson v. Martin, the court stated the 'vice lies not in the resulting injury but in the placing of the power of the State behind a racial classification that induces racial prejudice at the polls.' It analogized the situation to jury-race exclusion cases, where the process is so infected that prejudice is legally presumed and the result must be extinguished. The court also held that a lack of pre-election remedies and the diligence of the plaintiffs in protesting on election day and filing suit shortly thereafter justified the drastic remedy of voiding the election.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the authority of federal courts to intervene in state election processes to remedy egregious constitutional violations. It establishes that for certain gross forms of state-sanctioned racial discrimination, plaintiffs do not bear the burden of proving that the discrimination altered the election's outcome. By treating the infection of the process as the primary harm, the case provides a powerful precedent for challenging systemic electoral discrimination and empowers federal courts to grant affirmative relief, such as ordering a new election, to vindicate fundamental voting rights.
