Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-05
PRIMARY RIGHTS
TESTED IN CASE
Texas Negro Holds Law In
fringed His Rights as
Free Voter.
BY the Associated Press.

The Supreme Court was asked yes
terday to decide the jurisdiction OF
the Federal Government over State
primaries.
l.. A. Nixon, a negro. of Ell Paso,
who said he was excluded under the
State law from voting in a Democratic
primary, brought the case. which is
expected to throw some light on the
Jurisdiction of Congress in primaries
and bring a ruling which may bear
on questions now perplexing the
Senate.
Counsel for Nixon explained that
his client had for years regularly
voted the Democratic ticket, but that
the election judges at Ell Paso had
refused to permit him to participate IN
the primaries there after the enact
ment in 1923 of a law which provided
that no negroes should be permitted
to vote in primaries.
Texas won in the lower Federal
courts, which held that State prima-
ries were exempt from Federal juris-
diction.
The National Association for the
Advancement Of Colored People is
behind the test.
The appeal is regarded of vital i'm
portance In determining not only the
franchise rights of negroes in Texas
but generally throughout the South.
1t was asserted by association counsel
that should the Texas law be sus-.
tanned the negroes in the South would
be effectively disfranchised by state
legislation restricting their rights IN
primaries. The association declared
that in the South the real contest
over candidates occurs in the prl-
maries and that the general elections
are merely OorfunCtOry.
Leaders in Congress looked to the
case as promising to bring a decision
which would be helpful in deciding
to what extent Federal laws relating
to primary expenditures could be
made effective and also which might
aid in the solution of some of the
problems which are expected to arise
in considering the credentials of
Senators Ware of Pennsylvania and
Smith Of Illinois.
Jurisdiction Is Attacked.
The election officials did not pre-
sent any defense on the appeal and
were not represented in the court yes
terday by counsel. Attorney General
Moody, who is soon to become gov
ernor of the State, obtained permits
sion from the court to file brief on
behalf Of the State defending the
validity Of the law and questioning
Federal jurisdiction.
In the argument of the case as pre-
scented by Nixon's counsel, there
seemed to be much confusion in the
mind Of the court as to the exact ques-
ton presented. Counsel stressed that
the main question at issue was the
tlght to vote" as defined in the
fifteenth amendment, contending that
the right to vote there conferred ex-
tended to all questions upon which
the franchised citizen may cast his
ballot, and was not confined to the
right to vote in the general elections.
1t included, counsel argued, the right
to vote in primaries and in the issue
Of bonds, and in all matters upon
which the views OF the electorate was
to be obtained.
Members of the court asked numer-
GUS questions. Those put by Justice
Butler seemed to reflect the view that
tn primaries were only for the pur-
pose Of selecting party candidates and
did not deprive a voter of the ballot
right at the general elections. and
that the case seemed to present only
the question of the right of a negro
to participate In the selection Of party
candidates. Chief Justice Taft seemed
to attach more importance to the case,
stating that If negroes could be ex-
Guided from voting in Democratic pri-
maT'ies in Texas the State would be at
liberty to provide by law that no one
except negroes should vote at a. Re-
publican primary. Justice Sutherland
referred to decisions of the court
which had interpreted the right to
vote as stated in the Constitution,
combining the meaning Of the term to
the right TO exercise the elective
franchise.