Harman v. Forssenius
Primary source
Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). Edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.
Background
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.
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."
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, 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
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).
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.