Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1942-11-17
Close Question Seen
In Poll Tax Issue
Supreme Court Has Not Ruled
On Power Of Congress
To Bon Levy
BIZ J. A. For.

By J. A. For.
Despite the confident views from op-
posing camps as to the constitutionality
and vice versa-of legislation to outlaw
the collection of poll tax as prerequi-
site to voting in Federal elections in
eight Southern States, impartial legal
authorities watching the Senate fight
from the sidelines, are convinced that
the issue raised is exceedingly fine, and
that the scales could tilt either way If
the pending bill became law, and the
inevitable test brought 1t to the Supreme
Court.
Strengthening the argument OF oppo-
nents OF the measure is the fact that the
Supreme Court, in 1897, upheld in sweep
ing language the Georgia poll tax law,
and by implication did the same thing
year ago in refusing to review a lower
court decision unfolding the Tennessee
poll tax
The other side of the picture is that
the right of Congress to legislate against
the tax was not involved in either in
stance, while the court, notably in a
case from Louisiana at the last term.
has held that Congress has broad powers
to deal with both primaries and general
elections.
The potential issue, therefore, as OBJ
servers see 1t, is whether the poll tax,
II the test came, would continue to en-
JOY the status of "a familiar and reason
able regulation" by the States. as the
Supreme Court previously has charac-
terized 1t in the absence of a congress-
slonal declaration to the contrary, or
whether the court would feel bound by
the fact that Congress had seen At to
leglslate against the tax as a source of
evil susceptible of treatment under the
Constitution.
The Georgia statute was attacked by
one Breedlove who appealed from a rul-
ing by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Seeking writ of mandamus to compel
authorities to permit his registration to
vote Tor Federal and State officers with
out paying the 81 tax, he advanced two
arguments: That the tax, applying to
males between 81 and so years of age.
was an unreasonable imposition violating
the equal rights guarantees of the four
teenth amendment, and that 1t was dis
cr1m1natory because non-applicable to
women.
A unanimous court, speaking through
Justice Butler, brushed aside both con-
tentions. Going on the premise that
the equal protection clause does not re-
quire absolute equality" the court dis
posed OF the plea that the law violated
the fourteenth amendment in this Ian
guage:
TO make payment of poll taxes a
prerequisite OF voting is not to deny any
privilege or immunity protected by the
fourteenth amendment. Privilege of
voting is not derived from the United
States, but is conferred by the State and,
save as restrained by the fifteenth and
nineteenth amendments, and other pro-
VISIONS OF the Federal Constitution. the
State may condition suffrage as it deems
appropriate. The privileges and immu-
nltles protected are only those that arise
from the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and not those that spring
from other sources"
Dlsmlsslng as "fanciful" the conten-
lion that the tax Disseminated in favor
OF women, the court said that "women
may be exempted on the basis of special
considerations to which they are nat,,r-
ally entitled. In view of the burdens
necessary borne by them for the pres
ervatlon OF the race, the State reason
ably may exempt them from poll taxes
while the opinion dealt only with the
Georgia statute, the whole tone indj.
Gated the courts acceptance of the
principle OF the poll taxes as a leeiti-
mate exercise of the taxing power of
any State. At one point, it was recalled
that the payment OF poll taxes as q
prerequisite to voting is familiar and
reasonable regulation long enforced in
many States" At another-"levy bv the
poil has long since been familiar form
OF taxation, much used in some coun-
tries, and to considerable extent here
at tlrst in the Colonies and later. in
the States.
In further defense of the Georgia law
the court said that payment as a. IRE.
requisite is not required for the purpose
OF denying or abridging the privilege of
voting. 1t does not limit the tax tn
electors; aliens are not there permitted
10 vote, but the tax is laid upon them
II within the defined class"
significantly, perhaps, in the Classic
case from Louisiana in which the Federal
power over congressional elections was
strengthened, the court, through Chief
Justice Stone, referred to this Breedloye
decision, and said that while in loose
sense, the right to vote for Representa-
tlves in Congress is sometimes spoken
OF as right derived from the States
this statement is true only in the sense
that the States are authorized by the
Constitution to legislate on the subject
to the extent that Congress has
not restricted State action by the exer-
else OF its powers to regulate elections"
under the Constitution.
1t was subsequent to this decision.
however, that the court refused to re-
view the Tennessee case in which the
litigant contended that his rights
under the fourteenth amendment had
been abridged when he was denied the
right to participate in a congressional
primary due to non-payment of the poll
tax.
Three members of the court who par
ticipated in the Breedlove decision-Chief
Justice Stone and Justices Roberts and
Blackjack part also in the Classic case