green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
18.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1986 ·
…the petition . . . seeks to recover for private damage
at p. 540
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1927 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1927
1976
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
(6×)
But see Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927) (suggesting the common law as a basis).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Memphis Community School District v. Stachura
(2×)
the petition . . . seeks to recover for private damage
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In fact, “[t]hat private damage may be caused by” the infringement of a person’s right to vote “and may be recovered for in suit at law hardly has been doubted for over [three] hundred years.” Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 (1927).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Madrial v. Garland
See Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 , 650–51 (1944) (denial under political party bylaw); Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 539 (1927) (denial under Texas state statute).8 Plaintiff also invokes several cases concerning ballot eligibility.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Isabel v. Reagan
In Nixon—which was decided in 1927—a black resident 10 of Texas wasn’t allowed to vote in a 1924 primary election due to a Texas statute, enacted 11 in 1923, which provided that “in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a 12 Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas.” 273 U.S. at 540 (citation 13 omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Litig., 129 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D.N.J. 2001) (citing Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 (1927); Can v. United States, 14 F.3d 16 160, 163 (2d Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bush v. Lucas
(2×)
See Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932); Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 540 (1927); Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487 (1902); Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58 (1900); J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carey v. Piphus
Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 540 (1927); see also Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944); Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 469 (1939) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932); Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368 (1915); Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475 (1903); Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487 (1902); Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58 (1900).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Codd v. Velger
(2×)
As with any infringement of an intangible constitutional right, e. g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 540 (1927) (damages allowable for unlawful denial of the right to vote), a jury should be permitted to decide whether to fix and award damages— perhaps only nominal — for the very denial of a timely due process forum where a stigmatized individual could participate in the process of attempting to clear his name.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O'BRIEN v. Brown
(2×)
If the defendants' conduct was a wrong to the plaintiff the same reasons that allow a recovery for denying the plaintiff a vote at a final election allow it for denying a vote at the primary election that may determine the final result." Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 540 (1927).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
(2×)
See Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932); *396 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 540 (1927); Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487 (1902); Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58 (1900); J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oregon v. Mitchell
(2×)
Writing for a unanimous Court, Mr. Justice Holmes observed tartly that "[w]e find it unnecessary to consider the Fifteenth Amendment, because it seems to us hard to imagine a more direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth." Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 540-541 (1927); see Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73, 83, 87-89 (1932) (Cardozo, J.); Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399 (1964); cf. Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 35-36 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
(2×)
"States may do a good deal of classifying that it is difficult to believe rational, but there are limits, and it is too clear for extended argument that color cannot be made the basis of a statutory classification affecting the right [to vote] set up in this case." Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 541 (Holmes, J.). [1] Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. [2] In the Senate hearings leading to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, some doubt was expressed whether state poll taxes could be validly abolished through the exercise of Congress' legislative power under § 5 of the Fourt…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Scholle v. Secretary of State
(12×)
also: Cited "see"
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 23, 24 ( 13 S Ct 3 , 36 L ed 869); Nixon v. Herndon, 273 US 536, 538 ( 47 S Ct 446 , 71 L ed 759); Nixon v. Condon, 286 US 73 ( 52 S Ct 484 , 76 L ed 984, 88 ALR 458 ); see Pope v. Williams, 193 US 621 ( 24 S Ct 573 , 48 L ed 817)." In Southern R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
C. G. Gomillion v. Phil M. Lightfoot, as Mayor of the City of Tuskegee
(2×)
When a racial discrimination voting issue is clearly posed the Court has evidenced little concern for judicial abstention in “cases posing political issues.”' Mr. Justice Holmes provided this frontal attack for the Court in the “white primary case” of Nixon v. Herndon, 1927, 273 U.S. 536, 540, 541 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 “The objection that the subject-matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joyner v. Browning
Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540, 541 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 *517 L.Ed. 759; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 88 , 52 S.Ct. 484 , 76 L.Ed. 984 , 88 A.L.R. 458 ; Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S.. 45, 55 S.Ct. 622 , 79 L.Ed. 1292 , 97 A.L.R. 680 .
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. Guam
See Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 325 (1966) (collecting cases).
cited
Cited "see"
Arnold Davis v. Guam
See Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 325 (1966) (collecting cases).
examined
Cited "see"
Calvin v. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
(3×)
See Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540-41 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927).
examined
Cited "see"
Kucinich v. Texas Democratic Party
(3×)
See Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927).
examined
Cited "see"
Cantrell v. Morris
(3×)
See Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 , 52 S.Ct. 484 , 76 L.Ed. 984 (1932) and Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927) (civil damage remedy for violation of federal statute forbidding racial discrimination at the voting polls); see also Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U.S. 487 , 22 S.Ct. 783 , 46 L.Ed. 1005 (1902) and Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 , 21 S.Ct. 17 , 45 L.Ed. 84 (1900) (civil damage action for unlawful rejection of plaintiffs' votes at federal elections). 9 .
cited
Cited "see"
Allah v. Al-Hafeez
See 477 U.S. at 311 n.14 (citing Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927)).
examined
Cited "see"
Michael Malik Allah, Minister Khalil Wali Muhammad Michael Malik Allah v. Humza Al-Hafeez William W. Ennis, Rev. United States of America, Intervenor
(3×)
See 477 U.S. at 311 n. 14, 106 S.Ct. 2537 (citing Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927)).
examined
Cited "see"
LaRouche v. Fowler
(3×)
See Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 , 52 S.Ct. 484 , 76 L.Ed. 984 (1932); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 , 64 S.Ct. 757 , 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 , 73 S.Ct. 809 , 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953).
discussed
Cited "see"
Domegan v. Ponte
See Stachura, 477 U.S. ___ ________ at 310-11 & 311 n.14 (discussing Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 _____ _______ (1927), and other cases); Carey, 435 U.S. at 264 -65 & 265 n.22 _____ (emphasizing that "elements and prerequisites for recovery" for one constitutional deprivation are not necessarily appropriate for another; discussing voting rights cases); see also Walje v. ___ ____ _____ City of Winchester, Kentucky, 827 F.2d 10, 12-13 (6th Cir. 1987) _____________________________ (presumed damages available for First Amendment deprivation not involving the right to vote); City of Watseka v. Il…
examined
Cited "see"
Dennis J. Domegan v. Joseph Ponte, (Two Cases)
(6×)
See Stachura, 477 U.S. at 310-11 & 311 n. 14, 106 S.Ct. at 2545, n. 14 (discussing Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927), and other cases); Carey, 435 U.S. at 264 -65 & 265 n. 22, 98 S.Ct. at 1053 n. 22 (emphasizing that "elements and prerequisites for recovery” for one constitutional deprivation are not necessarily appropriate for another; discussing voting rights cases); see also Walje v. City of Winchester, Kentucky, 827 F.2d 10, 12-13 (6th Cir.1987) (presumed damages available for First Amendment deprivation not involving the right to vote); City of Watseka …
examined
Cited "see"
Colegrove v. Green
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 541 ; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Skrmetti
See, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 541 (1927) (holding unconstitutional a law that ex- cluded black citizens from “tak[ing] part in a primary elec- tion”); Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399, 400 (1964) (hold- ing unconstitutional a law that required ballots to “designate the race of candidates for elective office”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Kim v. Board of Education of Howard County
See, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 (1927).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Democratic Party of Washington State Paul Berendt James Apa Helen Carlstrom Vivian Caver Charlotte Coker Edward Cote Ted Highley Sally Kapphahn Karen Marchioro David McDonald Joseph Nilsson David Peterson Margarita Prentice Karen Price Marilyn Sayan John Thompson Ya-Yue Van, Washington State Grange Terry Hunt Jane Hodde, Intervenors-Appellees, and Republican State Committee of Washington, Jeff Kent Lindsey Echelbarger Libertarian Party of Washington Washington State Grange Terry Hunt Jane Hodde Christopher Vance Dione Ludlow John Mills Freedom Socialist Party Green Party of Washington Chris Caputo Donald Crawford Erne Lewis, Intervenor v. Sam Reed, Secretary of State of the State of Washington, Democratic Party of Washington State Paul Berendt James Apa Helen Carlstrom Vivian Caver Charlotte Coker Edward Cote Ted Highley Sally Kapphahn Karen Marchioro David McDonald Joseph Nilsson David Peterson Margarita Prentice Karen Price Marilyn Sayan John Thompson Ya-Yue Van, Jeff Kent, Libertarian Party of Washington Washington State Grange Terry Hunt Jane Hodde Dione Ludlow John Mills Freedom Socialist Party Green Party of Washington Chris Caputo Donald Crawford Erne Lewis, Intervenor, and Republican State Committee of Washington, Jeff Kent Lindsey Echelbarger Libertarian Party of Washington Washington State Grange Terry Hunt Jane Hodde Christopher Vance Dione Ludlow John Mills Freedom Socialist Party Green Party of Washington Chris Caputo Donald Crawford Erne Lewis Democratic Party of Washington State Christopher Vance Lindsey Echelbarger Diane Tebelius, Intervenors-Appellants, Washington State Grange Terry Hunt Jane Hodde, Intervenors-Appellees v. Sam Reed, Secretary of State of the State of Washington, Democratic Party of Washington State Paul Berendt James Apa Helen Carlstrom Vivian Caver Charlotte Coker Edward Cote Ted Highley Sally Kapphahn Karen Marchioro David McDonald Joseph Nilsson David Peterson Margarita Prentice Karen Price Marilyn Sayan John Thompson Ya-Yue Van, Opinion Christopher Vance Republican State Committee of Washington, Jeff Kent Lindsey Echelbarger Dione Ludlow Freedom Socialist Party Green Party of Washington Diane Tebelius, Intervenors, and Democratic Party of Washington State Reed Libertarian Party of Washington State John Mills Chris Caputo Donald Crawford Erne Lewis, Intervenors-Appellants, Washington State Grange Terry Hunt Jane Hodde, Intervenors-Appellees v. Sam Reed, Secretary of State of the State of Washington
(3×)
See also Kennedy v. City of Seattle, 94 Wash.2d 376 , 617 P.2d 713, 715-16 (1980) (issues may be of sufficient public importance to bar the use of collateral estoppel). 13 See, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 , 52 S.Ct. 484 , 76 L.Ed. 984 (1932); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 , 64 S.Ct. 757 , 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 , 73 S.Ct. 809 , 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Democratic Party of Washington State v. Reed
(3×)
See, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 , 52 S.Ct. 484 , 76 L.Ed. 984 (1932); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 , 64 S.Ct. 757 , 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 , 73 S.Ct. 809 , 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
National Committee of the Reform Party of the United States v. Democratic National Committee
(3×)
See, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927) (citizens barred by statute from voting in primary on account of race); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 650-51 , 64 S.Ct. 757 , 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944) (citizen denied ballot for primary nomination on account of race); Wayne v. Venable, 260 F. 64 (8th Cir.1919) (citizens excluded from polling place by private defendant who threatened election watchers).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1065, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1337 National Committee of the Reform Party of the United States of America Perot '96, Inc. Perot Reform Committee, Inc. Reform Party of California John Place v. Democratic National Committee Clinton/gore '96 General Committee Clinton/gore '96 Primary, Inc. Republican National Committee Dole for President, Inc. State Central Committee of the California Democratic Party State Central Committee of the Republican Party Federal Election Commission Dole/kemp '96
(3×)
See, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927) (citizens barred by statute from voting in primary on account of race); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 650-51 , 64 S.Ct. 757 , 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944) (citizen denied ballot for primary nomination on account of race); Wayne v. Venable, 260 F. 64 (8th Cir.1919) (citizens excluded from polling place by private defendant who threatened election watchers).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Walje v. The City Of Winchester
(3×)
See, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Walje v. City of Winchester
(3×)
See, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education
(6×)
See also Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State Ex Rel. La Follette v. Democratic Party of United States
(2×)
See, e.g., Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953), reh. denied, 345 U.S. 1003 (1953), Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 318 (1941), Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932), and Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryant v. McGinnis
(3×)
See, e. g., Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927); Jeanty v. McKey & Poague, Inc., 496 F.2d 1119 (7th Cir. 1974); Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74, 88 (3d Cir. 1965); Larkins v. Oswald, 364 F.Supp. 1374 (W.D.N.Y.1973), aff’d, 510 F.2d 583, 590 (2d Cir. 1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cousins v. Wigoda
(2×)
See also the Texas White Primary Cases, Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 (1927); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Cabrera v. Board of Elections of Camden County
(3×)
Compare Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927) with the instant case.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Graves v. Barnes
(3×)
See, e. g., Nixon v. Herndon, 1926, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (holding unconstitutional a Texas statute prohibiting Negroes from participating in the Democratic party primary election).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Gilliam v. City of Omaha
(3×)
See also the opinion of Justice Holmes in Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 [1927].
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Hawkins v. North Carolina Dental Society
(6×)
The Board is clearly one of the state serving a public, regulatory function of the State 8 Bell v. Georgia Dental Ass'n, N.D.Ga., 231 F.Supp. 299 ; See also Wilson v. Thompson, 83 N.J.L. 57, 60 , 83 A. 502 , 504 9 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S. Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 , and see its successors, cited below, coping with attempts at avoidance by indirection 10 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S. Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 11 Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 , 52 S.Ct. 484 , 76 L.Ed. 984 , 88 A.L.R. 458 12 Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 , 55 S.Ct. 622 , 79 L.Ed. 1292 , 97 A.L.R. 680 13 Smith v.…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. State of Louisiana
(3×)
See also Nixon v. Herndon, 1924, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 ; United States v. Classic, 1941, 313 U.S. 299 , 61 S.Ct. 1031 , 85 L.Ed. 1368 ; Terry v. Adams, 1953, 345 U.S. 461 , 73 S.Ct. 809 , 97 L.Ed. 1152 ; Elmore v. Rice, E.D.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
A. B. McDonald v. George D. Key, Benjamin M. Cassity and J. Wm. Cordell
(3×)
See also Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 541 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 . 2 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Morgan v. Civil Service Commission
See, also, Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 ; 47 S. Ct. 446 ; 71 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NIXON
v.
HERNDON Et Al.
v.
HERNDON Et Al.
117.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 21, 1927.
Messrs. Fred C. Knollenberg and A. B. Spingarm, with whom Messrs. Louis Marshall, Moorfield Storey, James A. Cobb, and Robert J. Channell were on the briefs, for Nixon., No appearance for defendants in error., Messrs. Claude Pollard, Attorney General of Texas, and D. A. Simmons, First Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of Texas, by special leave of Court.
Holmes.
Cited by 329 opinions | Published
[*539] Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action against the Judges of Elections for refusing;to permit the plaintiff to vote at a primary election in Texas. It lays the damages at five thousand dollars. The petition alleges that the plaintiff is a negro, a citizen of the United States and of Texas and a resident of El Paso, and in every way qualified to vote, as set forth in detail, except that the statute to be mentioned interferes with his right; that on July 26, 1924, a primary election was held at El Paso for the nomination of candidates for a- senator and representatives in Congress and State and other offices, upon the Democratic ticket; that[*540] the plaintiff, being a member of the Democratic party, sought to vote but was denied the right -by defendants; that' the denial was based upon a Statute of Texas enacted in May, 1923, and designated Article 3093a, by the words of which “ in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas,” &c., and that this statute is contrary to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The defendants moved to dismiss upon the ground that the subject matter of the suit was political and not within the jurisdiction of the Court and that no violation of the Amendments was shown. The suit was dismissed and a writ of error was taken directly to this Court. Here no argument was made on behalf of the defendants but a brief was allowed to be filed by the Attorney General of the State.
The objection that the subject matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words. Of course the petition concerns political action but it alleges and seeks to recover for private damage. That private damage may be caused by such political action and may be recovered for in a suit at law hardly has been doubted for over two hundred years, since Ashby v. White, 2 Ld. Raym. 938, 3 id. 320, and has been recognized by this Court. Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58, 64, 65. Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475, 485. See also Judicial Code, § 24 (11), (12), (14). Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231; 36 Stat. 1087, 1092. If the defendants’ conduct was a wrong to the plaintiff the same reasons that allow a recovery for denying the plaintiff a vote at a final election allow it for denying a vote at the primary election that may determine the final result.
The important question is whether the statute can be sustained. But although we state it as a question the answer does not seem to us open to' a doubt. We find it unnecessary to consider the Fifteenth Amendment, be[*541] cause it seems to us hard to .imagine a moré direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth. That Amendment, while it applies to all, was passed, as wé know, with a special intent to protect the blacks from, discrimination against them. Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303. That Amendment “not only gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to persons of color, but it denied to any State the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws. . . . What is this but declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equál before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color? ” Quoted from the last case in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 77. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 374. The statute of Texas in the teeth of the prohibitions referred to assumes to forbid negroes to take part in a primary election the importaúce of which we have indicated, discriminating against them by the distinction of color alone. States may do a good deal of classifying that it is difficult, to believe rational, but there are limits; and it is too clear for extended argument that color cannot be made the basis of a statutory classification affecting the right set up in this case
Judgment reversed.