Minor v. Happersett

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The process Minor v. Happersett , 88 US 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), is a case in the United States Supreme Court in which the court ruled that the United States Constitution does not grant any person, and specifically in this case a female Missouri citizen , a right to vote, too when state law gives a specific class of citizen voting rights. The Supreme Court upheld state decisions in Missouri where a woman was denied registration as a legitimate voter because state law allowed only men to vote.

The judgment in the case of Minor v. Happersett was based on the interpretation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution . The Supreme Court willingly accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but found that the citizen's constitutionally protected prerogatives did not include the right to vote.

The 19th Amendment , which became part of the Constitution in 1920, made the decision of Minor v. Happersett fell by banning sex-based discrimination in the right to vote. The case of Minor v. Happersett continued to be quoted until the 1960s when it came to restrictive voting rights of other kinds. Then the Supreme Court began to interpret the so-called Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in such a way that it protects citizens from discrimination in voting rights.

prehistory

Virginia Minor, whose unsuccessful attempt to register as a voter was the cause of the trial

Virginia Minor, a Missouri women's rights leader, attempted to register as a voter in St. Louis County, Missouri , on October 15, 1872 , but was turned down because she was a woman. With the assistance of her lawyer husband, Francis Minor, she brought a lawsuit in the state courts against Reese Happersett, the registrar who refused her electoral roll-off, on the grounds that the Missouri State Constitution only allowed the Allowing men to vote was in violation of the American Constitution , particularly in violation of Amendment 14. The core of the Minor couple's argument was that as a citizen you automatically have the right to vote, an assertion with enough controversy on both sides to make it an open question.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Registrar and against Minor. The State Court found that it had been the common practice of all states ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present day to limit the electoral rights to men only; in addition, he pointed out that the clear intent of the 14th Amendment was to give former slaves civil rights rather than forcing further changes to state law. In particular, the court found that the second section of the 14th Amendment (punishing states that refused to vote any citizen) specifically referred to male citizens, and it concluded by saying, “This clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the states to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants. "(German: This is a clear recognition of the law - and seems to anticipate the implementation of the law - that the state will The right to vote is restricted to male residents. )

Minor appealed to the United States Supreme Court on the Missouri ruling and presented the same reasoning that had previously been unsuccessful in the state court. It was also added that women's suffrage should be brought into line with the original intention of the Constitutional Fathers. The Supreme Court worked out that the sole issue was whether the Constitution gave women the right to vote, contrary to federal law, which restricted that right to men. The state of Missouri did not send a legal representative to defend the decision in the Supreme Court, but instead chose a three-part brief to justify the decision.

Supreme Court decision

Chief Justice Morrison Waite, wrote the verdict on trial, which was passed unanimously.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Missouri electoral law, stating that voting was not an inherent right of the citizen, that the Constitution neither granted nor forbade the right to vote for women, and that allowing only men to vote is not a violation Minors are rights granted by the 14th Amendment.

The statement of reasons (written by the United States Chief Justice , Morrison Waite ) first addressed the question of whether Minor was a citizen of the United States and answered it positively, citing both the 14th Amendment and the earlier Common Law .

The court then asked whether the right to vote was one of the privileges or liberties of citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868. By citing a number of historical sources, it stated that this was not the case. The court argued that the United States Constitution does not explicitly give citizens a positive vote. Throughout the nation's history since the Constitution was adopted, a large number of people, including women, had been recognized as citizens but had no right to vote. The reasoning continues: “It cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared. " (German: It cannot be doubted for a moment that the fathers of the constitution would not have left it to the implication if they had intended to make all citizens electorate in the United States. Such a change would be in the current civil rights has been expressly declared in the event of an existing intention. )

Later developments

The 19th amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1920, prohibited denying or restricting the right to vote for any citizen of the United States based on sex. Thus the essence of the judgment in the Minor v. Happersett repealed.

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court began to view the right to vote as a fundamental right backed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. On a divergent reasoning in a 1964 Supreme Court case that included the reallocation of seats in the Alabama State Legislature , Associate Justice, John Marshall Harlan II , included the minor in a list previous decisions about voting and the allocation of seats that were no longer relevant.

See also

literature

  • Norma Basch: Reconstructing Female Citizenship: Minor v. Happersett . In: Nieman, Donald G. (ed.) (Ed.): The Constitution, Law, and American Life: Critical Aspects of the Nineteenth-Century Experience . University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA 1992, ISBN 978-0-8203-1403-7 , pp. 52-66.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Justicia US Supreme Court accessed March 20, 2019
  2. ^ Ray and Richards, 2007, p. 376.
  3. ↑ Basch, 1992, p. 59
  4. ↑ Minor v. Happersett , 53 Mon. 58, 62 (1873)
  5. ↑ Basch, 1992, p. 55
  6. ^ Ray and Richards, 2007, p. 378
  7. ↑ Minor v. Happersett , 53 Mo. at 63.
  8. ↑ Minor v. Happersett , 53 Mo. at 65.
  9. ^ Ray and Richards, p. 384
  10. ↑ Minor v. Happersett , 88 US 162, 165 (1875).
  11. ^ Mary A. Greene: Results of the Woman – Suffrage Movement . In: Forum (1894), edited by American Periodicals Series III, New York, p. 417.
  12. ↑ Minor v. Happersett , 88 US at 168.
  13. ↑ Minor v. Happersett , 88 US at 175.
  14. ↑ Minor v. Happersett , 88 US at 173.
  15. ↑ Briffault, Richard: The Contested Right to Vote . In: Michigan Law Review . 100, 2002, pp. 1521-1522.
  16. ↑ case Reynolds v. Sims , which is all about electoral fair size.

Web links