Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1928-03-31
anv law or legal requirement that
tbe state itself can do. disregard or
..o rbo wording of Mr.. Lutz's

deal with a particular party, nor
does it specifically bar any race.
1t gives the parties the right to
make their own rules and regula-
lions to bar the Negroes from par
ticipating and voting in the Demo-
cratic party primary" Can the
legislature of Virginia legally do
this? To ask the question is to
answer it. The claim is that dis
elimination on account of race and
color is made, but it is done by
individuals and not by the State.
If the State has made the in
dividuals, it's agents, then the State
must see to it that its agents snail
live and operate within the limits
of the Constitution under which the
State lives and operates. Each and
every citizen must receive the equal
protection of the law, in accord
ance with the provisions of the XIV
Amendment to the CONSTITUTIONS OF
the United States. The State can
not delegate to individuals the
power and authority to fout and
disregard the constitutional law and
the mandate of the Supreme Court
of the United States.
It could, if this were true, dele
gate with equal propriety to IN
dividuals to lynch person or to
subject such person to cruel and
unusual punishments. The State
not only cannot do this, but its
officials become responsible and
when put on notice are under
sworn obligation to prevent such
violations of the law and to use
the courts and the armed forces
of the State to prevent just such
happenings.
In this case, the State of Viz
ginia has been pu. on notice that
the constitutional rights Of class
of IFS citizens are not only
eorardized, but ere about to be
AIKEN away.
What shall be done about it?
We chall see. Mr.. Lutz says:
the courts have held, lawyers
assert, that the Constitution pro
nibi,e discrimination by the United
Gta.cs and States, but not by in
divi1uals.
This argument needs no farther
answer The individuals are not
acting in their individual capacity,
out have become agents OF the
State and accordingly the remark
has no significance in this dis
cussion.
Eesroes are barred from Demo
CRATIC primaries entirely by the
Texas law. But, under the Viz
ginia law, they could participate IN
any primary if the party holding
the primary permitted them to-
This remark is covered by previ-
Gus discussion. 1t does not merit
further attention. He concludes as
follows:
The Texas law reads: "All quail
fed voters under the laws and the
of the State of Texas
who are bona fide members of the
Democratic party shall be eligible
to participate in any Democratic
party primary election, providing
such voter complies with all the
laws and rules governing party
primary elections; however, IN no
event shall Negro be eligible to
participate in Democratic party
primary election held in the State
of Texas and, should a Negro vote
in Democratic party primary
election, such ballot shall be void
and election officials are herein dl,,
rected to throw out such ballot and
not count the same"
Section 228, Code of Virginia,
says: "All persons qualified to vote
at the election for which the pri--
mary is held, and not disqualified
by reasons Of other requirements In
the law of the party to which ne
belongs, may vote at the primary.
At another point, the Code con
tinues: "The words law of the
party as used in this section, shall
be construed to mean the law or
rules and regulations adopted by
the State, district OF local authori-
ties Of the party under whose
AUSPICES The primary is held not
in conflict with the party plan OF
such party"
This then ends the matter, so far
rs the Negro Democrats are con-
cemed. 1t provides that such rules
and regulations are operative, pro-
vided they are not in conflict with
the law of the party. Is it not
to state that these rules
and regulations are operative even
though they are in conflict with
the laws of the United States, when
the party's officials are acting as
agents of the State? AS matter
of fact, Negro Democrats have the
legal right to vote, all else being
equal in the Democratic primary,
April 3, 1928.
Personally, we are not concerned