Citations 321 U.S. 649 (more) End date 1944 | Dissent Roberts | |
 | ||
Full case name Smith v. Allwright, Election Judge, et al. Majority Reed, joined by Stone, Black, Douglas, Murphy, Jackson, Rutledge Concurrence Frankfurter (in the judgment of the court only) Ruling court Supreme Court of the United States Similar Shelley v Kraemer, Sweatt v Painter, Guinn v United States, Gomillion v Lightfoot, McLaurin v Oklahoma State Reg | ||
Smith v allwright
Smith v. Allwright , 321 U.S. 649 (1944), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation. It overturned the Texas state law that authorized the Democratic Party to set its internal rules, including the use of white primaries. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to delegate its authority over elections to the Democratic Party in order to allow discrimination to be practiced. This ruling affected all other states where the party used the white primary rule.
Contents
The Democrats had effectively excluded minority voter participation by this means, another device for legal disenfranchisement of blacks across the South beginning in the late 19th century.
Background
Lonnie E. Smith, a black dentist from the Fifth Ward area of Houston, and a voter in Harris County, Texas, sued county election official S. S. Allwright for the right to vote in a primary election being conducted by the Democratic Party. He challenged the 1923 state law that authorized the party to establish its internal rules; the party required all voters in its primary to be white.
The Democratic Party had controlled politics in the South since the late 19th century (see Solid South) and the state legislatures of the former Confederacy effectively disenfranchised blacks in the period from 1890 to 1908, by new constitutions and laws raising barriers to voter registration and voting. This crippled the Republican Party in most southern states, and resulted in the only competitive elections being held as the Democratic Party primary. Texas had used poll taxes and the white primary to exclude nearly all blacks, Mexican Americans, and other minorities from voting. Representing the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall argued this case in favor of Lonnie E. Smith.
In the earlier case of Grovey v. Townsend (1935), brought on similar grounds, the Court had ruled against the plaintiff, saying the Democratic Party was a private organization with the ability to set its own rules, by state law. In 1932 the Democratic State Convention of Texas had established rules allowing only whites to vote in the party primaries.
Issue
Texas claimed that the Democratic Party was a private organization that could set its own rules of membership. Smith argued that the state by its law had delegated some of its authority to regulate elections to the Democratic Party, which essentially disenfranchised him by denying him the ability to vote in what was the only meaningful election in his jurisdiction.
The decision
The Court agreed that the restricted primary denied Smith his equal protection under the law (according to the Fourteenth Amendment) and found in his favor. It said that by delegating its authority to the Democratic Party to regulate its primaries, the state was allowing discrimination to be practiced, which was unconstitutional.
This decision enabled the revival of black participation in Texas politics, for those voters who could get through the discriminatory voter registration process. Smith's efforts inspired Barbara Jordan, a Fifth Ward resident who would later become a black politician in Texas.