government court cases :: essays research papers

Smith v. AllwrightA resolution of the representative company of Texas, a group that the Texas Supreme judicature had deemed a "voluntary connector," allowed and whites to participate in Democratic primary elections. S.S. Allwright was a county election ex officio he denied Lonnie E. Smith, a black man, the right to select in the 1940 Texas Democratic primary. Question Presented Did denying blacks the right to voting in primary elections violate the fifteenth Amendment?Conclusion The Court overruled its decision in Grovey v. Townsend (1935) and found the restrictions against blacks unconstitutional. Even though the Democratic Party was a voluntary organization, the fact that Texas statutes governed the selection of county-level party leaders, the party conducted primary elections under state statutory authority, and state courts were tending(p) exclusive original jurisdiction over contested elections, guaranteed for blacks the right to vote in primaries. Allwright en gaged in state action abridging Smiths right to vote because of his race. A state cannot "permit a private organization to coiffe racial discrimination" in elections, argued Justice Reed. (The Courts decision in this government issue was amended on June 12, 1944.)Buckley v. ValeoFacts of the Case In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress seek to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restrict financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of currency an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required report of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election equip was created to enforce the statuteQuestion Presented Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the inner(a) Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendments freedom of speech and association clauses?Conclusion In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two valuable conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enkindle the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on arrive campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily deepen the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to antecedent a curtailment on free speech and association.