Note:
Gunnar Myrdal died in 1987, less than 70 years ago.
Therefore, this work is protected by copyright,
restricting your legal rights to reproduce it.
However, you are welcome to view it on screen, as you do now.
Read more about copyright.
Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - V. Politics - 22. Political Practices Today - 2. Southern Techniques for Disfranchising the Negroes
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
Chapter 22. Political Practices Today 481
The legal fight with reference to the white primary did not begin in the
federal courts until 1927. At that time the law passed by the State Legis-
lature of Texas in 1923 was declared unconstitutional.^’^ The Supreme
Court held that a state government could not legally declare a white
primary. Another decision in 1932^® simply declared that a state govern-
ment could not vest the right to restrict the suffrage in the party’s State
Executive Committee, and so nothing significant was really decided: the
restriction was simply declared by the party’s State Convention instead of
by the Executive Committee. A 1935 decision by the Supreme Court^® was
far more significant—it apparently upheld the white primary by declaring
that the primary is an affair of the party alone, and, as a voluntary institu-
tion, a political party could restrict its adherents as it pleased. This deci-
sion may be limited to the Texas situation where an attempt has been made
to divorce the Party from the State. In other states—such as Virginia,
Florida, and Louisiana—the expenses of the primary are paid by the state,
and the state has formally declared the public character of the primary.
In these states, the white primary would seem to be clearly unconstitu-
tional.
The legal issue today hinges around the question as to whether the
primary is a public affair: advocates of a white primary claim that the
party is a voluntary association and as such it can restrict its participants.
Those opposed to the party restrictions against Negroes in the primary
claim that the general election is profoundly changed by the existence of
the primary, which is the most important election in the South, and that,
therefore, voting in the primaries should be subject to the Constitution. One
fact which disturbs the legal case of those who would restrict the Negro
from voting in the primaries is that in many areas white Refublicans are
permitted to vote in the Democratic primaries, but Negro Democrats are
not.® In a recent decision by the Supreme Court—in a case concerning
fraudulent practices and not Negro participation—the position was taken
that “the primary in Louisiana is an integral part of the procedure for the
popular choice of Congressmen” and that, therefore, no person qualified
to vote in the general election can be disqualified in the primary.^® The
legality of the white primary is, therefore, still not settled,^^ and it is
under vigorous attack.
Probably the most notorious—although certainly not the most efficient-
device to keep the Negro from voting in the South is the ’poll tax. The
poll tax is one of the oldest forms of direct taxation, but it was usually
compulsory and, therefore, had little effect in restricting the vote. In
modern times the compulsory poll tax is being generally abandoned as it
IS a regressive tax.“^ Eight Southern states have a voluntary poll tax and
* In the last two decades, few areas in the South have had Republican primaries—partly
because the law does not provide for a primary where there are few elig^ible voters and
partly because Southern Republicans are not interested in having a primary.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
