Nixon v. Herndon
273 U.S. 536 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that explicitly prohibits individuals from participating in a political party's primary election solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- L.A. Nixon, a Black man, was a citizen of the United States and Texas, residing in El Paso.
- Nixon was a member of the Democratic Party and was otherwise fully qualified to vote in the party's primary elections.
- In May 1923, Texas enacted a statute, Article 3093a, which stated that "in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas."
- On July 26, 1924, a Democratic primary election was held in El Paso for various state and federal offices.
- When Nixon attempted to cast his ballot in this primary election, the Judges of Elections, C.C. Herndon and Charles Porras, refused to permit him to vote.
- The sole basis for the refusal was Nixon's race, as mandated by the Texas statute.
Procedural Posture:
- L.A. Nixon sued the Judges of Elections in federal trial court, seeking damages for the refusal to allow him to vote.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the subject matter was a political question outside the court's jurisdiction.
- The federal trial court granted the motion and dismissed Nixon's lawsuit.
- Nixon appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States via a writ of error.
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 Texas state law that expressly forbids African Americans from participating in a Democratic party primary election violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Holmes
Yes, the Texas law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found it difficult to imagine a more direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed with the special intent to protect Black people from state-sponsored discrimination. The Amendment guarantees that the law in the States shall be the same for all persons, regardless of color. A state statute that creates a classification based solely on race to deny the right to vote in a primary election is a clear violation of this constitutional command. The Court dismissed the argument that the case concerned a non-justiciable 'political question,' reasoning that the suit sought recovery for private damages resulting from political action, a claim long recognized by courts.
Analysis:
This decision, one of the foundational 'Texas White Primary Cases,' established that an explicit state statute barring racial minorities from a primary election constitutes prohibited state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. By striking down the law, the Court affirmed that primary elections are a critical part of the electoral process and are subject to constitutional protections. However, the ruling's narrow focus on the state statute itself left open the question of whether a political party, as a supposedly private entity, could discriminate on its own, a loophole that led to subsequent litigation over the constitutionality of white primaries.
Unlock the full brief for Nixon v. Herndon