Harman v. Forssenius
Citations
- 380 U.S. 528
- 85 S. Ct. 1177
- 14 L. Ed. 2d 50
- 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1347
About this case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1965 United States Supreme Court case
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that Virginia 's partial elimination of the poll tax violated the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution .
Virginia attempted to avoid the effect of the 24th Amendment by creating an "escape clause" to the poll tax. In lieu of paying the poll tax, a prospective voter could apply for a certificate establishing a place of residence in Virginia. The application had to be made six months prior to an election, a measure expected to decrease the number of eligible voters.[1]
In the 1965 Supreme Court decision of Harman v. Forssenius, the Court unanimously found such measures unconstitutional and declared that, for federal elections, "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed."[2]
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harman_v._Forssenius&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: References")
]
- ↑ Chadwick, John (January 24, 1964). "Poll Tax Battle Long One" . Eugene Register-Guard. Associated Press.
- ↑ Harman v. Forssenius , majority opinion.
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harman_v._Forssenius&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Works related to Harman v. Forssenius at Wikisource
- Text of Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965) is available from: Findlaw Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harman_v._Forssenius&oldid=1351325507 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Harman v. Forssenius
Add languages Add topic
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that six-month advance registration to avoid poll tax unduly burdened the right to vote
- holding that six-month advance registration to avoid poll tax unduly burdened the right to vote
- holding that “the Twenty-fourth Amendment abolish[ed] the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections”
- holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to abstain \[g]iven the importance and immediacy of the problem[ ] and the delay inherent in referring questions of state law to state tribunals\
- holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to abstain \[g]iven the importance and immediacy of the problem[] and the delay inherent in referring questions of state law to state tribunals\
- noting that by the time the Twenty-fourth Amendment was proposed, “only five States retained the poll tax as a voting requirement”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Warren
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.