Court Opinion

ID: 9696133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:38:00.856871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.899282
License: Public Domain

Carr, J.
(concurring). We are in accord with the introductory paragraphs and with sections 1 and 2 of Mr. Justice Edwards’ opinion, and concur in his proposed disposition of the case. Plaintiff has based his right to the writ of mandamus sought by him on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The purpose, scope, and practical application of said amendment in a controversy of the character now before us has been repeatedly considered by the supreme court of the United States, and this Court must follow the decisions rendered.
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall (88 US) 162 (22 L ed 627), decided shortly after the adoption of the amendment in question, the Federal supreme court in a unanimous decision rejected the claim that issues involving the right or privilege of suffrage were within the scope of the amendment, viewed in connection with other provisions of the Constitution, and the reasons underlying the adoption thereof. Said decision has been repeatedly cited in later cases. The position that the supreme court has taken with respect to controversies of this nature clearly appears from the Minor Case, subsequent decisions citing that case with approval, and the numerous decisions to which Mr. Justice Edwards has called attention. As pointed out in the opinion in the Minor Case (p 175), the Fifteenth Amendment, providing *125that the right of citizens of the United States to vote should not be denied or abridged for specified reasons, would have been unnecessary if the Fourteenth Amendment was applicable in the controversy before the Court. Like comment may be made with reference to the Nineteenth Amendment relating to woman suffrage.
We agree that in the instant case the relief sought by plaintiff should he denied, and the petition dismissed, without costs.
Dethmers, C.. J., and Kelly, J., concurred with Carr, J.