Yes, what the Jaybirds are doing is illegal. Even though their election was technically private, it was the only election that truly mattered. The official government election was just a rubber stamp for the Jaybirds' choice. This whole setup was just a sneaky, three-step trick to get around the 15th Amendment, which says you can't deny someone the right to vote because of their race. Because the Jaybird election was the real decider, it had to follow the Constitution.

Yes, it's illegal because government officials were in on it. The local government workers who were supposed to run fair elections for everyone were also members of the Jaybirds and voted in their private, all-white election. By participating, these officials were using their government power to support a racist system. That government involvement makes the whole scheme unconstitutional.

Yes, it’s illegal because the Jaybirds were acting like a real political party that had taken over the election process. The state of Texas basically let this private club make the real decision about who would win the election. When a private group becomes the true power that picks public officials, it has to follow the same rules as the government and can't discriminate based on race.

No, what the Jaybirds did may be morally wrong, but it's not unconstitutional. The Constitution only stops the government from discriminating, not private citizens or clubs. The Jaybirds are just a very powerful private group that is good at getting its candidates elected. The government of Texas isn't helping them or using their results. It's just private people organizing, and the Court has no power to stop that.

Yes, it's against the Constitution. Even though Texas doesn't run the Jaybird elections, those elections are the most important part of picking county leaders. By not letting black people vote, the Jaybird club is basically taking away their right to have a say, and that's not allowed. The appeals court was wrong to say it was okay. The Constitution's rules apply whenever a private group is given the power to choose government officials.

What the Jaybird club does is wrong, but it's not technically illegal under the Constitution. The Constitution only stops the government from discriminating, not private clubs. The Jaybird club isn't actually part of the official election system and it doesn't have to follow state election laws. It's a private group that supports certain candidates, who then run in the normal elections. The majority is stretching the Constitution too far and interfering with private organizations.

The Jaybird club is clearly working as a helper to the regular Democratic Party in the county. It uses the party's systems to make black votes not matter. Because the Jaybird elections basically decide everything, the Constitution's rules against racism have to apply to them. When a state lets a private group have that much power over elections, the private group has to follow the same rules as the government.

In particular, even though the Supreme Court had struck down several discriminatory practices, the state of Texas and its political parties still sought to circumvent those decisions, leading to the Court's further decisions in the White Primary Cases.

Justice Black, however, announced the most important part of the case: "[t] he Jaybird primary [had] become an integral part, indeed the only effective part of the elective process that determines who shall rule and govern in the county."

It is true that the Supreme Court has found state action present when a private entity exercises powers "traditionally exclusively reserved to the State."

—concluded that the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on race-based voting exclusions applied not just to a primary election, but to a primary election run by a private club called the Jaybird Democratic Association.

As our country grappled with the scourge of racial and economic discrimination at the ballot box, the Supreme Court consistently intervened in the so-called "White Primary Cases" to recognize that primary elections—or even pre-primary party activity that restricted access to the primary ballot—were sufficiently "state action" to trigger application of the Reconstruction …

W] hen a state structures its electoral apparatus in a form which devolves upon a political organization the uncontested choice of public officials, that organization itself, in whatever disguise, takes on those attributes of government which draw the Constitution's safeguards in play

Thus for example, a voter cannot be deprived of the right to vote in a determinative primary election on account of his race in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.

As the United States Supreme Court explained, "parties and their representatives have become the custodians of official power...; and that if heed is to be given to the realities of political life, they are now agencies of the state, the instruments by which government becomes a living thing."

Such a claim involves the threshold problem whether, in the circumstances of this case, what Iowa, through its courts, did amounted to'state action.'This is a complicated problem which for long has divided opinion in this Court.

Although, as this Court noted in its earlier opinion, § 1983 has never been held to support removal under 28 USC § 1443 (1), it has been frequently employed to protect the voting rights of Negroes in original actions filed in federal court.

Yes, the Jaybird primary's racially exclusionary practices violate the Fifteenth Amendment. The court must analyze the combined effect of the entire electoral machinery, which is a three-step process of the Jaybird primary, the Democratic primary, and the general election, purposefully designed to circumvent the Fifteenth Amendment. It is immaterial that the state does not formally control the Jaybird primary; by permitting this duplication of its election processes, the state allows a private organization to nullify the right of Black citizens to an effective vote. The Jaybird primary has become an integral part, indeed the only effective part, of the elective process, producing the equivalent of a prohibited, state-run discriminatory election, which violates the Constitution.

Yes, the scheme violates the Fifteenth Amendment because it involves state action through the participation of state officials. The vital requirement for a Fifteenth Amendment violation is state responsibility, which exists when there is an infusion of conduct by officials panoplied with state power. Here, county election officials, who are charged by Texas law with ensuring fair primaries, participate in the Jaybird primary. By helping subvert the state's official electoral scheme, these officials cannot divest themselves of their state authority, and their participation makes the private discriminatory scheme reachable by law.

Yes, the Jaybird Association's activities violate the Fifteenth Amendment. The Association functions as a political party and an auxiliary of the local Democratic Party, making it part of the 'machinery for choosing officials' under the rule of Smith v. Allwright. When a state structures its electoral system in a way that devolves the uncontested choice of public officials upon a private organization, that organization takes on the attributes of government and is subject to the Constitution's prohibitions on racial discrimination. The Jaybird primary is the decisive power in the county's electoral process, rendering the subsequent official elections a mere formality and nullifying the votes of Black citizens.

No, the Jaybird Association's actions do not violate the Fifteenth Amendment because they do not constitute state action. The Constitution prohibits discriminatory action by the State, not by private individuals or groups. The Jaybird Association is a private pressure group that is successful in its political endorsements; its success is the result of concerted private action, which does not become state action merely by being effective. The record shows no cooperation with, regulation by, or use of state machinery by the Jaybird Association, which operates entirely separate from the state-sanctioned primary process.

Yes. The Jaybird Democratic Association's primaries, although not state-regulated, have become an integral part, indeed the only effective part, of the electoral process in Fort Bend County, Texas. The Association's exclusion of Negroes from its primaries effectively denies them the right to vote on account of race, in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals' judgment is reversed, and the District Court's holding that the Jaybird-Democratic-general election machinery has deprived petitioners of their right to vote because of their race is affirmed. The Court recognizes that when a state structures its electoral apparatus in a way that devolves upon a political organization the uncontested choice of public officials, that organization, in whatever disguise, takes on attributes of government which draw the Constitution's safeguards into play.

The Jaybird Democratic Association's activities do not constitute state action, which is required for a Fifteenth Amendment violation. The Association does not operate as part of the state's electoral machinery and is not regulated by state law. It is a private, voluntary organization that merely endorses candidates who subsequently enter the Democratic primaries. The Association's discriminatory practices, while reprehensible, are private actions not prohibited by the Constitution. The majority's finding of state action improperly expands the concept and threatens the autonomy of private political associations.

The Jaybird Democratic Association operates as an auxiliary of the local Democratic Party, using its machinery to destroy the effect of Negro votes in Fort Bend County. By serving as the locus of effective political choice in the county, the Association's primaries become subject to the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibitions. When a state devolves uncontested electoral choice upon a political organization, that organization takes on attributes of government that invoke constitutional safeguards. The Association's activities fall within the principle of Smith v. Allwright and violate the Fifteenth Amendment.

Terry v. Adams

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