Minor v. Happersett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Minor v. Happersett | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 9, 1874 Decided March 29, 1874 |
||||||
| Full case name | Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett | |||||
| Citations | 88 U.S. 162 (more) 22 L. Ed. 627; 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1354; 21 Wall. 162 |
|||||
| Prior history | Error to the Supreme Court of Missouri | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The Court held that voting is not a privilege of citizenship. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Waite, joined by unanimous | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | ||||||
|
Overruled by
|
||||||
| Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (in part) | ||||||
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law which ordained "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Virginia Minor, a leader of the women's suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Contents |
[edit] Decision
The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the Missouri voting legislation saying that the limitation of suffrage to male citizens was not an infringement of Minor's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the lower court's ruling on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment does not add to the privileges or immunities of a citizen, and that historically "citizen" and "eligible voter" have not been synonymous. Since the United States Constitution did not provide suffrage for women, the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer that right. The court's decision had nothing to do with whether women were considered persons under the Fourteenth Amendment; the court ruled that they were clearly persons and citizens. It rested solely on the lack of provisions within the Constitution for women's suffrage.
[edit] Subsequent History
Minor has not been explicitly overruled by another U.S. Supreme Court decision. In fact, Minor is still cited for the proposition that the Constitution does not confer the right to vote. However, as the decision relates to women's suffrage in particular, it is no longer good law.
[edit] See also
- Nineteenth Amendment – Provided female citizens of the United States the right to vote.
- Women's Suffrage
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 88
[edit] Further reading
- Basch, Norma (1992). "Reconstructing Female Citizenship: Minor v. Happersett". in Nieman, Donald G. (ed.). The Constitution, Law, and American Life: Critical Aspects of the Nineteenth-Century Experience. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. pp. 52–66. ISBN 082031403X.
- Cushman, Clare (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights: Milestone to Equality. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. pp. 7–8. ISBN 1568026145.
- Ray, Angela G.; Richards, Cindy Koenig (2007). "Inventing Citizens, Imagining Gender Justice: The Suffrage Rhetoric of Virginia and Francis Minor". Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (4): 375–402. doi:.
