2107

1 Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 538–40, 543–44 (1965); United States v. 

Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234, 238–45 (W.D. Tex.) (three-judge court), aff’d on other 

grounds, 384 U.S. 155 (1966). 2 H.R. Rep. No. 1821, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 3, 5 (1962). 

3 Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937); Saunders v. Wilkins, 152 F.2d 235 

(4th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946); Butler v. Thompson, 97 F. Supp. 

17 (E.D. Va), aff’d, 341 U.S. 937 (1951). 4 Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 10, 79 Stat. 442, 42 U.S.C. § 1973h. For the results of actions instituted by the Attorney General under direction of this section, 

see United States v. Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234 (W.D. Tex.) (three-judge court). aff’d 

ABOLITION OF THE POLL TAX 

TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT 

SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to 

vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice 

President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for 

Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or 

abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure 

to pay any poll tax or other tax. 

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this 

article by appropriate legislation. 

EXPANSION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE 

Ratification of the Twenty-fourth Amendment in 1964 marked 

the culmination of an endeavor begun in Congress in 1939 to effect 

elimination of the poll tax as a qualification for voting in federal 

elections. Property qualifications extend back to colonial days, but 

the poll tax itself as a qualification was instituted in eleven States 

of the South following the end of Reconstruction, although at the 

time of the ratification of this Amendment only five States still retained it. 1 Congress viewed the qualification as ‘‘an obstacle to the 

proper exercise of a citizen’s franchise’’ and expected its removal to 

‘‘provide a more direct approach to participation by more of the 

people in their government.’’ Congress similarly thought a constitutional amendment necessary, 2 inasmuch as the qualifications had 

previously escaped constitutional challenge on several grounds. 3

Not long after ratification of the Amendment – applicable only 

to federal elections – Congress by statute authorized the Attorney 

General to seek injunctive relief against use of the poll tax as a 

means of racial discrimination in state elections, 4 and the Supreme 

2108 AMENDMENT 24—ABOLITION OF THE POLL TAX 

on other grounds, 384 U.S. 155 (1966); United States v. Alabama, 252 F. Supp. 95 

(M.D. Ala. 1966) (three-judge court). 5 Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (invalid discrimination based on wealth). 6 380 U.S. 528 (1965). 

Court held that the poll tax discriminated on the basis of wealth 

in violation of the equal protection clause. 5

In Harman v. Forssenius, 6 the Court struck down a Virginia 

statute which eliminated the poll tax as an absolute qualification 

for voting in federal elections and gave federal voters the choice either of paying the tax or of filing a certificate of residence six 

months before the election. Viewing the latter requirement as imposing upon voters in federal elections an onerous procedural requirement which was not imposed on those who continued to pay 

the tax, the Court unanimously held the law to conflict with the 

new Amendment by penalizing those who chose to exercise a right 

guaranteed them by the Amendment.