Pope v. Williams
1904 U.S. LEXIS 903, 24 S.Ct. 573, 193 U.S. 621 (1904)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The privilege to vote is conferred by the states, not the U.S. Constitution, and states have the authority to prescribe conditions for the exercise of suffrage, including requiring new residents to declare their intent to reside in the state one year prior to registering to vote, so long as those conditions do not violate specific federal constitutional prohibitions.
Facts:
- On March 29, 1902, a Maryland statute went into effect.
- The statute required any person moving into the state to file a written declaration of their intent to become a citizen and resident of Maryland with a court clerk.
- This declaration had to be made at least one year before the person could be registered as a qualified voter.
- More than two months after the law took effect, Pope, a U.S. citizen, moved from Washington, D.C. to Montgomery County, Maryland.
- Pope intended to become a permanent citizen and resident of Maryland.
- Pope applied to the Board of Registry to be registered as a voter.
- Pope had not filed the required declaration of intent one year prior to his application, as mandated by the new statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Pope's application to be registered as a voter was denied by the Board of Registry in Montgomery County, Maryland.
- Pope challenged the denial in the Maryland state court system.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, affirmed the decision to deny Pope's registration.
- Pope (as plaintiff in error) appealed the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, alleging the Maryland statute violated his federal constitutional rights.
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 requiring individuals who move into the state to make a formal declaration of their intent to become a resident one year before being eligible to register to vote violate any rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Peckham
No. A state law requiring individuals who move into the state to make a formal declaration of their intent to become a resident one year before being eligible to register to vote does not violate any rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The privilege to vote is not a right of U.S. citizenship granted by the Federal Constitution; rather, it is a privilege that falls within the jurisdiction of the states to regulate. Citing Minor v. Happersett, the court affirmed that states may set the terms for voting as they see fit, provided they do not discriminate in a manner specifically prohibited by the Federal Constitution, such as on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Maryland statute does not create an unlawful discrimination, deny equal protection of the laws, or violate any fundamental rights of U.S. citizens because it applies a uniform condition precedent for all persons coming into the state to reside.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the principle of state sovereignty over election administration and voter qualifications, a prevalent view in the early 20th century. It establishes that states may impose procedural hurdles like durational residency requirements and declarations of intent without offending the U.S. Constitution. While later decisions, such as Dunn v. Blumstein (1972), would use the Equal Protection Clause to strike down lengthy residency requirements as an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel and vote, Pope v. Williams represents a foundational case establishing a baseline of broad state power and a deferential federal standard of review for voting regulations.
