United States v. Classic
|This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
|United States v. Classic|
|Argued April 7, 1941
Decided May 26, 1941
|Full case name||United States v. Classic, et al.|
|Citations||313 U.S. 299 (more)
61 S. Ct. 1031; 85 L. Ed. 1368; 1941 U.S. LEXIS 601
|Prior history||On appeal from the District Court of the U.S. for the Eastern District of Louisiana|
|U.S. Const. art. 1, Sec. 4 empowers Congress to protect rights of electors in state primary elections; upheld Federal Corrupt Practices Act|
|Majority||Stone, joined by Frankfurter, Reed, Roberts; Hughes took no part|
|Dissent||Douglas, joined by Black, Murphy|
|U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 2; U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 4; 18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 51|
United States v. Classic 313 U.S. 299 (1941) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the United States Constitution empowered Congress to regulate primary elections and political party nominations procedures, and that the constitutional "right of participation" extended to primary elections "is protected just as is the right to vote at the election, where the primary is by law made an integral part of the election machinery, whether the voter exercises his right in a party primary which invariably, sometimes or never determines the ultimate choice of the representative."
Many observers assumed that the court had already ruled in Newberry v. U.S., 256 U.S. 232 (1921), that primary elections could not be regulated under the powers granted to Congress under Article I, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. But writing for the majority, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone argued that the Newberry court had been deeply divided on the issue and no majority had ruled one way or the other. Utilizing the reasoning by Chief Justice Edward Douglass White and Justice Mahlon Pitney in their concurrent opinions in Newberry, Stone argued that the Constitution's protection of the right to vote cannot be effectively exercised without reaching to primary elections and/or political party nominating procedures.
Though broadly noting that the constitutional right to vote extends to a party primary even when it "sometimes or never determines the ultimate choice of the representative," the Court offered no standard for determining whether a primary "was made an integral part of the election machinery." However, in Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, the Court clarified that this extends to virtually all primaries, noting that "Virginia, like most States, has effectively divided its election into two stages, the first consisting of the selection of party candidates and the second being the general election.".
In a "diffident" dissent, Justice William O. Douglas agreed that the Constitution gives the Congress the right to regulate primaries, but concluded that the U.S. criminal code did not explicitly outlaw the actions in question. "It is not enough for us to find in the vague penumbra of a statute some offense about which Congress could have legislated, and then to particularize it as a crime because it is highly offensive," Douglas wrote. "Sec. 19 does not purport to be an exercise by Congress of its power to regulate primaries."
- Classic, 313 U.S. at 318.
- See Id.
- "Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 205-07 (1996)". Justia.com.
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
|This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|