Myers and Others v. Anderson; Same v. Howard; Same v. Brown

Citations

• 238 U.S. 368
• 35 S. Ct. 932

Syllabus

<p>Guinn v. United States, ante, p. 347, followed as to the effect and operar tion of the Fifteenth Amendment and that a State may not establish as a standard for. exercising suffrage a standard existing prior to the adoption of that Amendment and which was rendered illegal thereby.</p> <p>While the Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the right of suffrage on any class, it does prohibit the States from depriving any person of the right of suffrage whether for Federal, state or municipal elections.</p> <p>Election officers who refuse to allow persons to exercise their suffrage - because of a state law disqualifying them according to a standard made unconstitutional by the Fifteenth Amendment are liable for damages in a civil action under § 1979, Rev. Stat.</p> <p>Where the standards fixed for voters are several in number, but are all so interrelated that one cannot be held invalid without affecting the others, the entire provision must fail.</p> <p>Where a statute establishing qualifications for exercising suffrage is unconstitutional, it does not deprive the citizens of the right to vote, as the previously existing statute is unaffected by the attempted adoption of one that is void for unconstitutionality.</p> <p>The so-called Grandfather Clause in the statute of Maryland of 1908 fixing the qualifications of voters at municipal elections in the City of Annapolis, based on the right of the citizen or his ancestor to vote at a date prior to the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because the standards then existing have been made illegal by the self-operating force of the Fifteenth Amendment.</p> <p>182 Fed. Rep. 223, affirmed.</p>