Evening star., 1944-04-09
Grovey
Continued From Page c-13

power in a State Executive Com
n1ittee, to be exercised at its dis
cretion.'
Although it did not pass upon the
constitutionality Of 3l07, as we did
in Nixon vs. Condor, the court thus
recognized the fact upon which our
decision turned, that the effort was
to vest in the State Executive Com
mittee the power to bind the party
by its decision as to who might be
admitted to membership.
In Bell VS.. Hill, = the same
court, in a mandamus proceeding
instituted after the adoption by the
State convention of the resolution
Of May "a, 1882, restricting eligibility
for membership in the Democratic
party to white persons, held the
resolution valid and effective. After
a full consideration Of the nature of
political parties In the United States,
the court concluded that such par
ties In the State Of Texas - are
voluntary associations for political
action and are not creatures OF the
State .. The court declared
that q proper view of the election
laws OF Texas, and their history,
required the conclusion that the
Democratic party in that State is
voluntary political association
and, by its representatives assembled
In convention, has the power to de-
termine who shall be eligible for
membership and, as such, eligible to
participate in the party's primaries.
We cannot, as petition urges, give
weight to earlier expressions Of the
State courts said to be inconsistent
with the declaration Of the law. =.
In the light of the principles so
announced, we are unable to char
acterize the managers Of the primary
election as State officers In such
sense that any action taken by them
In obedience to the mandate of the
State convention respecting eligible
lty to participate in the organiza-
tion's deliberations, is State action.
Second. We are told that Sections
2 and ~ of the Bill of Rights Of
the Constitution of Texas as con-
strued in Bell VS.. Hill, violate the
Federal Constitution, for the reason
that 80 construed they fail to forbid
classification based upon race and
color, whereas in Love VS.. Wilcox,
they were not held to forbid classifi-
cations based upon party Affiliations
and membership or nonmembership
In organizations other than political
parties, which classifications were by
Article 3107 Of Revised Civil Statutes.
1925, prohibited. But, as above said
IN Love VS.. Wilcox the court did not
construe or apply any constitutional
provision and expressly reserved the
question as to the power of a party
in convention assembled to specify
the qualifications for membership
therein.
Third. An alternative contention
OF petitioner Is that the State Dem
ocratic convention which adopted
the resolution here involved was a
mere creature of the State and could
not lawfully do what the Federal
Constitution prohibits to its creator.
We are not prepared to hold
that In Texas the State convention
OF a party has become a mere in
strumentality or agency for express
ing the voice or will of the State.
Fourth. The complaint states that
candidates for the Offices of Sena-
tor and Representative in Congress
were to be nominated at the primary
election of July 8, 1884, and that in
Texas nomination by the Democratic
party is equivalent to election. These
facts (the truth Of which the de-
murrer assumes) the petitioner in
slsts, without more, make out
forbidden discrimination. A similaf
situation may exist in other States
where one or another party includes
great majority of the qualified
electors. The argument is that as a
Negro may not be denied ballot at
general election on account of his
race or color, If exclusion from the
primary renders his vote at the gen.
eral election insignificant and use
less, the result is to deny him the
suffrage altogether. So to say is
to confuse the privilege of men,
bership in party with the right to
vote for one who is to hold a public
off1ce. With the former the State
need have no concern, with the latter
1t Is bound to concern itself, for the
general election is a function of the
State government and discrimina-
tion by the State as respects partici-
patton by Negroes on account Of
their race or color is prohibited by
the Federal Constitution. "'s
We find no ground for holding
that the respondent has in obedience
to the mandate Of the law of Texas
Disseminated against the petitioner
or denied him any right guaran-
teed by the 14th and 18th Amend
ments.
Judgment afYfrmed.