No. The party's rule is unconstitutional. Even though the Democratic Party is a private group, Texas law controls so many details of how the primary election is run that the party is basically doing the government's job. When the state gives a private group the power to run a critical part of an election, that group has to follow the Constitution. The 15th Amendment says you can't stop someone from voting because of their race, and that applies here. The Court admitted its previous decision allowing this was wrong and officially overturned it.

He agreed with the final decision but did not write his own opinion to explain why.

Yes, the party should be allowed to do this. The main reason is that the Supreme Court decided this exact same issue just nine years ago and said it was okay. Changing its mind so quickly makes the law unstable and unpredictable. Justice Roberts worried that this flip-flopping makes the Court's decisions seem temporary, like a 'restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only.' He argued for sticking with the previous decision for the sake of consistency.

Yes, it's against the Constitution's Fifteenth Amendment. When Texas lets the Democratic Party decide who can vote in its primary, and the party says only white people can vote, it's like the state itself is discriminating. I'm overturning the old decision that allowed this, because it was wrong and doesn't work. The right to vote is protected by the Constitution, and the state can't take it away or let a party take it away. Primary elections need to follow the same rules against discrimination as the main elections.

I agree with the result the Court reached.

I disagree with overturning the old decision. Nothing has really changed since then, except the names of the people involved. The Court is acting like its decisions are only good for one trip, like a train ticket. I'm worried this new decision might get overturned too when the justices change their minds again.

—holding that a state's establishment of primary system made party that set up an all-white primary "an agency of the state

The Fourteenth Amendment is generally inapplicable to a private entity such as the Mississippi Republican Party, but this court is cognizant of the fact that political primaries have been held to constitute "state action."

—the Supreme Court invalidated a Democratic State Party convention resolution which limited participation to only white voters in primary elections conducted by the party under statutory authority.

In cases under § 1983, `under color of law'has consistently been treated as the same thing as `state action'required under the Fourteenth Amendment

It may now be taken as a postulate that the right to vote in such a primary for the nomination of candidates without discrimination by the State, like the right to vote in a general election, is a right secured by the Constitution

I] t may be that this case is just another `restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only

Both requirements are treated as the functional equivalent of one another and can be analyzed under the same framework.

Nevertheless, when governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, "this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent."

Although adherence to precedent is not rigidly required in constitutional cases, any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification.

" `Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be... indirectly denied'or `manipulated out of existence.'"Id

Yes. When a primary election is made an integral part of the state's election machinery by law, a political party's action of excluding voters based on race constitutes state action and violates the Fifteenth Amendment. The Court found that Texas statutes pervasively controlled and regulated the primary system, making the Democratic Party an agent of the state in determining who could participate. Although the party was nominally a private organization, its power to set membership qualifications became the power to set voting qualifications for a critical stage of the election process. By endorsing, adopting, and enforcing the party's racial discrimination, the state effectively denied citizens the right to vote because of race. The Court explicitly overruled its prior decision in Grovey v. Townsend, stating that constitutional rights cannot be nullified by a state casting its electoral process in a form that permits a private organization to practice racial discrimination.

Concurred in the result without a written opinion.

No. The Court should have adhered to the principle of stare decisis and upheld the precedent set in Grovey v. Townsend, which was decided unanimously only nine years earlier on identical facts and law. Overruling this recent precedent introduces instability and confusion into the law, making Supreme Court decisions seem like 'a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only.' The majority's reliance on United States v. Classic is misplaced, as that case was factually and legally distinguishable and did not implicitly overrule Grovey. By reversing its own well-considered precedent, the Court undermines public confidence in the stability of our legal institutions.

Yes, the State does violate the Fifteenth Amendment because the Texas primary system, by allowing the Democratic Party to hold racially exclusive elections, constitutes state action. The exclusion of Negroes from the primary election is thus subject to the Fifteenth Amendment. I am overruling Grovey v. Townsend, recognizing that adherence to precedent is not rigidly required in constitutional cases and that any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification, which is present in this case due to the unworkability and poor reasoning of the precedent. The right to vote in a primary election is a right secured by the Constitution, and cannot be denied by the State or manipulated out of existence. When primaries become a part of the machinery for choosing officials, state and national, the same tests to determine the character of discrimination or abridgement should be applied to the primary as are applied to the general election. Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied in this way.

I agree with the result reached by the Court.

Smith v. Allwright

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot