Nixon v. Condon
1932 U.S. LEXIS 597, 286 U.S. 73, 52 S. Ct. 484 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state statute delegates the power to set voter qualifications in a primary election to a political party's executive committee, the committee's actions constitute state action. Therefore, any racial discrimination in setting those qualifications by the committee is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Facts:
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Herndon, which invalidated a Texas statute explicitly barring Black citizens from Democratic primaries, the Texas legislature enacted a new statute.
- The new statute, Article 3107, provided that every political party's 'State Executive Committee shall have the power to prescribe the qualifications of its own members.'
- Acting under this new statutory authority, the State Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of Texas passed a resolution stating 'that all white democrats... and none other, be allowed to participate in the primary elections.'
- L. A. Nixon, a Black citizen of the United States and Texas, was a qualified voter and a member of the Democratic party.
- On July 28, 1928, Nixon presented himself at his polling place to vote in the Democratic primary.
- The election judges, Condon and Kolle, refused to provide Nixon with a ballot or permit him to vote, citing the Executive Committee's 'white democrats only' resolution.
Procedural Posture:
- L. A. Nixon brought an action for damages against judges of election, Condon and Kolle, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The District Court dismissed the action, holding that it failed to state a cause of action.
- Nixon appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment of dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the case.
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 state law that grants a political party's executive committee the authority to set voting qualifications for its primary elections, resulting in the exclusion of voters based on race, constitute state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cardozo
Yes. A state law that empowers a political party's executive committee to determine voting qualifications transforms the committee's discriminatory actions into state action, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court's reasoning is that the power exercised by the State Executive Committee did not derive from the party itself, but was instead a direct grant of authority from the Texas state legislature. By investing the committee with an authority independent of the will of the party's convention, the state made the committee an 'organ of the State itself.' The test is not whether the committee members are state agents in a strict sense, but whether they are representatives of the state to such an extent that their actions are limited by the Constitution. Because the committee acted as 'delegates of the State's power' when it barred Nixon from voting based on his race, its actions are subject to and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as established in Nixon v. Herndon.
Dissenting - Justice McReynolds
No. The state law does not constitute state action violating the Fourteenth Amendment because it merely recognizes the inherent power of a political party, as a voluntary association, to determine its own membership. The dissent argues that a political party is a private, voluntary association, not a governmental agency. The 1927 Texas statute did not grant new power but merely recognized the pre-existing, inherent power of the party to set its own membership rules. Therefore, the resolution excluding Black voters was a private action by the party, not an action by the state. The dissent distinguishes this case from Nixon v. Herndon, where the state itself directly commanded the exclusion, whereas here the state is neutral and a private association made the decision, which is not subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Analysis:
Nixon v. Condon is a key decision in the 'White Primary Cases,' which progressively dismantled state-sponsored racial disenfranchisement. The ruling narrowed the avenues states could use to circumvent the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by establishing that delegating state functions, such as setting election qualifications, to a seemingly private entity still constitutes state action. While the Court cautiously avoided declaring political parties themselves to be per se state actors, it set a precedent that when a state statute specifically empowers a party committee, that committee's actions are subject to constitutional scrutiny. This decision forced segregationists to devise other methods to maintain white primaries, ultimately leading to the landmark case of Smith v. Allwright, which held that primary elections are an integral part of the overall state-run election process.
