government court cases :: essays research papers

Smith v. Allw properlyA resolution of the elected Party of Texas, a group that the Texas Supreme Court had deemed a " willful association," allowed only whites to participate in Democratic primary picks. S.S. Allw redress was a county election official he denied Lonnie E. Smith, a black man, the right to vote in the 1940 Texas Democratic primary. Question Presented Did denying blacks the right to vote in primary elections die the Fifteenth Amendment?Conclusion The Court overruled its decision in Grovey v. Townsend (1935) and found the restrictions against blacks unconstitutional. purge though the Democratic Party was a voluntary brass section, the fact that Texas statutes governed the plectrum of county-level party leaders, the party conducted primary elections under verbalize statutory authority, and state courts were given exclusive original jurisdiction over contested elections, guaranteed for blacks the right to vote in primaries. Allwright engaged in state action abridging Smiths right to vote because of his race. A state cannot "permit a private organization to practice racial discrimination" in elections, argued Justice Reed. (The Courts decision in this matter was amended on June 12, 1944.)Buckley v. ValeoFacts of the Case In the wake of the Watergate affair, sex act attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by close financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the summation of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it needed reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal resource Commission was created to enforce the statuteQuestion Presented Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related furnish of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the counterbalance Amendments freedom of legal transfer and association clauses?Conclusion In this complicated case, the Cou rt arrived at ii important 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 enhance 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 total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not ineluctably enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great becoming to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.