Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 2/27/1922

Leser v. Garnett

Citations

  • 258 U.S. 130
  • 42 S. Ct. 217
  • 66 L. Ed. 505
  • 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2250

Syllabus

<p>1. A suit by qualified voters of Maryland to require the Maryland Board of Registry to strike the names of women from the register of voters upon the grounds that the state constitution limits the suffrage to men and that the Nineteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was not validly adopted, is maintainable under the Maryland law and raises the question whether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the Constitution. P. 136.</p> <p>2. The objection that a great addition to the electorate, made without a State’s' consent, déstroys its political autonomy and therefore exceeds the amending power, applies no more to the Nineteenth Amendment than to the Fifteenth Amendment, which is valid beyond question. P. 136.</p> <p>3. The Fifteenth Amendment does not owe its validity to adoption as a wa<r measure and acquiescence. P. 136.</p> <p>4. The function of a state legislature in passing on a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, is federal, and not subject to limitation by the people of the State. P. 137. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 221, 231.</p> <p>5. Official notice from a state legislature to the Secretary of 'State, duly authenticated, of its adoption of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, is conclusive upon him, and, when • certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. P. 137. Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 672, 673.</p>

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1922 U.S. Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of the 19th Amendment

1922 United States Supreme Court case

Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Nineteenth Amendment was constitutional .[1]

Prior history

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leser_v._Garnett&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Prior history")
]

Part of this section is transcluded from Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution . ((https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&action=edit) | history )

Maryland citizens Mary D. Randolph, "'a colored female citizen' of 331 West Biddle Street",[2] and Cecilia Street Waters, "a white woman, of 824 North Eutaw Street",[2] applied for and were granted registration as qualified Baltimore voters on October 12, 1920. To have their names removed from the list of qualified voters, Oscar Leser and others brought suit against the two women on the sole grounds that they were women, arguing that they were not eligible to vote because the Constitution of Maryland limited suffrage to men[3] and the Maryland legislature had refused to vote to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. Two months before, on August 26, 1920, the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was certified by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby .

Case

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leser_v._Garnett&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Case")
]

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide "Whether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the US Constitution." The plaintiffs disputed the constitutionality of the amendment through three claims:

  • The power to amend the Constitution did not cover this amendment, due to its character.
  • Several states that had ratified the amendment had constitutions that prohibited women from voting, rendering them unable to ratify an amendment to the contrary.
  • The ratifications of Tennessee and West Virginia were invalid, because they were adopted without following the rules of legislative procedure in place in those states.

In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Louis Brandeis , the court addressed each objection in turn.

In response to the first objection, the court declared that since the Fifteenth Amendment had been accepted as valid for more than fifty years, and dealt with a similar matter (in this case, that voting rights could not be denied on account of race), it could not be argued that the new amendment was invalid due to its subject matter.

In response to the second objection, the court decided that when the state legislatures ratified the amendment, they were operating in a federal capacity as laid down in the Constitution, a role which "transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state."

As far as the ratifications of Tennessee and West Virginia were concerned, the court remarked that the additional ratifications of Connecticut and Vermont after the proclamation of the amendment rendered the point moot , but the court also addressed the substance of the objection. The court found that as the Secretary of State had accepted the ratifications by the legislatures of the two states as valid, they were valid, effectively ruling the matter as non-justiciable .

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leser_v._Garnett&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: See also")
]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leser_v._Garnett&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. ↑ Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document .
  2. Jump up to: 1 2 Bronson, Minnie (November 6, 1920). "Maryland League for State Defense Starts Great Suit" . The Woman Patriot. Vol. 4, no. 45. p. 2 – via Google Books.
  3. ↑ "Leser v. Garnett page 217" (PDF). Independence Institute. October 1921.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leser_v._Garnett&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")
]

Suffrage

Basic topics

By country

…

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.

  • entertaining citizen challenge to registration of female voters

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brandeis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.