United States v. Classic

Supreme Court of the United States
313 U.S. 299, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The right of a qualified voter to participate in a primary election and have their vote counted is a right 'secured by the Constitution' when that primary is by law an integral part of the process for choosing a federal official or effectively controls the choice.

Facts:

Appellees, including Patrick B. Classic, were Commissioners of Elections responsible for conducting a primary election under Louisiana law.
The primary election was held on September 10, 1940, to nominate a Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.
In the Second Congressional District of Louisiana, winning the Democratic Party primary was, as a matter of practical reality, equivalent to winning the general election.
The appellees willfully altered 83 ballots cast for one candidate and 14 ballots cast for another.
They marked and counted these altered ballots as votes for a third candidate.
The appellees then falsely certified the fraudulent vote totals to the party's congressional district committee.

Procedural Posture:

The United States indicted the appellees in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for violating §§ 19 and 20 of the Criminal Code.
Appellees filed a demurrer to the indictment, arguing that the statutes did not apply to conduct in a primary election.
The District Court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the indictment on the grounds that the federal statutes did not extend to state primary elections.
The United States filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States under the Criminal Appeals Act.

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 the right of a qualified voter to participate in a state-run primary election to nominate a candidate for federal office, and to have their vote honestly counted, constitute a right 'secured by the Constitution' within the meaning of federal criminal statutes §§ 19 and 20 of the Criminal Code?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stone

Yes. The right to vote in a primary that is an integral part of the machinery for choosing a federal representative is a right secured by the Constitution. The Constitution, in Article I, § 2, guarantees the right of the people to choose their representatives. This right to choose is not confined to the final general election but extends to any stage of the process that is integral to or effectively determines the ultimate choice. Where state law makes a primary an indispensable step in the election of a member of Congress, or where the primary's outcome as a practical matter determines the choice in the general election, the right to vote in that primary and have one's vote counted is protected by the Constitution. Therefore, federal statutes criminalizing the conspiracy to injure a citizen in the exercise of a constitutional right (§ 19) and the deprivation of such rights under color of law (§ 20) are applicable to the actions of state election officials who alter ballots and falsify returns in such a primary.

Dissenting - Justice Douglas

No. While Congress possesses the constitutional authority to regulate primary elections, the general language of the criminal statutes at issue is not specific enough to make conduct in a primary a federal crime without more explicit legislation. Criminal statutes must be construed strictly and an offense must be clearly and plainly stated. Section 19 does not mention primaries, and extending its general protection of constitutional rights to cover primaries requires adding 'inference to inference.' The majority's test, which makes the criminality of an act dependent on the practical political importance of a primary in a given state, creates an uneven and unpredictable application of federal law. Given that Congress has repeatedly considered and declined to pass specific, broad legislation criminalizing fraud in primaries, the Court should not stretch this 'old statute to new uses' for which it was not intended.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expanded the scope of federal power over elections by bringing state-administered primary elections under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. It effectively overturned the precedent of Newberry v. United States, which had held that Congress lacked the power to regulate primaries. By defining the constitutional 'right to choose' as encompassing any integral or determinative stage of the election process, the Court enabled federal prosecution of election fraud at the primary level. This ruling provided a crucial legal foundation for subsequent voting rights cases, particularly those challenging the 'white primary' systems in the South that effectively disenfranchised minority voters.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Classic (1941)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature