Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright/Opinion_of_the_Court
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:31:30+00:00

Document:
The District Court denied the relief sought, and the Circuit Court of Appeals quite properly affirmed its action on the authority of Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45.  We granted the petition for certiorari to resolve a claimed inconsistency between the decision in the Grovey case and that of United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299. 319 U.S. 738.
Texas is free to conduct her elections and limit her electorate as she may deem wise, save only as her action may be affected by the prohibitions of the United States Constitution or in conflict with powers delegated to and exercised by the National Government.  The Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state from making or enforcing any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and the Fifteenth Amendment specifically interdicts any denial or abridgement by a state of the right of citizens to vote on account of color. Respondents appeared in the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals and defended on the ground that the Democratic party of Texas is a voluntary organization, with members banded together for the purpose of selecting individuals of the group representing the common political beliefs as candidates in the general election. As such a voluntary organization, it was claimed, the Democratic party is free to select its own membership and limit to whites participation in the party primary. Such action, the answer asserted, does not violate the Fourteenth, Fifteenth or Seventeenth Amendment, as officers of government cannot be chosen at primaries, and the Amendments are applicable only to general elections, where governmental officers are actually elected. Primaries, it is said, are political party affairs, handled by party, not governmental, officers. No appearance for respondents is made in this Court. Arguments presented here by the Attorney General of Texas and the Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee of Texas, as amici [p658] curiae, urged substantially the same grounds as those advanced by the respondents.
The privilege of membership in a party may be, as this Court said in Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45, 55, no concern of a state. But when, as here, that privilege is also the essential qualification for voting in a primary to select nominees for a general election, the state makes the action [p665] of the party the action of the state. In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the desirability of continuity of decision in constitutional questions.  However, when convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. This has long been accepted practice,  and this practice has continued to this day.  This is particularly true when the decision believed erroneous is the application of a constitutional principle, rather [p666] than an interpretation of the Constitution to extract the principle itself.  Here, we are applying, contrary to the recent decision in Grovey v. Townsend, the well established principle of the Fifteenth Amendment, forbidding the abridgement by a state of a citizen's right to vote. Grovey v. Townsend is overruled.
^ . A declaratory judgment also was sought as to the constitutionality of the denial of the ballot. The judgment entered declared the denial was constitutional. This phase of the case is not considered further, as the decision on the merits determines the legality of the action of the respondents.
^ . Smith v. Allwright, 131 F.2d 593.
^ . Cf. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 359-360.
^ . Cf. Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 652.
^ . See cases collected in the dissenting opinion in Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 410.
^ . See e.g., United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, overruling Hammer v. Dagenhart,247 U.S. 251; California v. Thompson, 313 U.S. 109, overruling Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34; West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, overruling Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525; Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376, overruling Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501, and Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393; Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, overruling Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1; Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, overruling Collector v. Day and New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, 299 U.S. 401; O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277, overruling Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501; Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, overruling Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, overruling Helvering v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 296 U.S. 39, and Becker v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 296 U.S. 48; Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, overruling Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402; Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, overruling Panhandle Oil Co. v. Knox, 277 U.S. 218, and Graves v. Texas Co., 298 U.S. 393; Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, overruling Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562; State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, overruling First National Bank v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, overruling Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586.
^ . Cf. dissent in Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 at 410.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.