Appendix — Annie E. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
Supreme Court brief1965
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 64 /765
No. $35 “3%
ANNIE E. HARPER, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
vs.
VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
INDEX
Original Print
Record from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division
Order permitting plaintiffs to file in forma pau-
ES gaa seat se ne Sl 1 1
EM ELS ee = 2 2
Applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis— 10 10
ESSE 10 10
RES SE SS oe en 11 11
ach needa ohapionerncicecenvienroenios 12 12
UI Tic I nse shaeas 13 13
I a teieciccintaeeetoeaelloomnconswweies 18 14
Answer of Electoral Board of Fairfax County
and Waneta M. Buckley, General Registrar
Fairfax County, Virginia 0. 22 16
No Scanichonnciecentseni 24 17
Authorities relied upon in support thereof - 26 18
Answer of the defendant, Virginia State Board
EER IES ORME ER cere 28 19
Motion for leave to amend complaint — 31 22
RecorD Press, PRINTERS, New York, N. Y., Aprit 21, 1965
Ey Pe ee dt eee
—
INDEX ii
Original Print
Record from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division — Continued
Order granting motion to amend complaint and
also setting date for hearing on the merits, ete. Ra 28
Answer of the defendant, Virginia State Board
of Elections, te amended complaint 40 M
Transeript of hearing, October 21, 1964 (ex-
cerpts) Nyi 26
Appearances ds 26
Oral argument in behalf of the defendants by
Richard N. Harris ao 7
Opinion per curiam 72 31
Final order 7 MM
Notice of appeal te the Supreme Court of the
United States 76 RA)
Clerk's certifieate (omitted in printing) 7a wv
Order noting probable jurisdiction so 37
a—«,
{fol 1]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Civil Action Ne. 8253
Annis EB. Hanven, er ar. Plaintiffs,
Vs,
Vinatnia Stare Boarp or Enecrions, et at, Defendants.
Onven Pennserrring Prams riers to Fioe un Forma Pacrenis
Mareh U7, 19%G4
lt is ordered that Aunie EK. Harper, Gladys A. Berry,
Curtis Burr and Myrtle LL. Burr be, and they hereby are,
permitted to commence and prosecute this vetion against
Virginia State Board of Elections, Electoral Board of
Fairfax County, and Waneta Mo Buekley, General Reg
istrar of Pairtay County, in forma pauperis, without being
roquired to prepay costs or fees or to give security therefor,
Dated this 17 day of Mareh 1964,
Oren Ro Lewis, United States District Judge.
een a
ee Ete erent
ee
2
[fol. 2] (File endorsement omitted]
In THE Unitep States District Court
For THE Eastern District oF VIRGINIA
Avexanpria Division
Civil Action No. 3253
Anniz E. Harper, Route 1, Box 28, Alexandria (Fairfax
County), Virginia, Guapys A. Berry, Route 1, Box 30,
Alexandria (Fairfax County), Virginia, Curtis Burr
and Myrtie L. Burr, 840 Quander Road, Alexandria
(Fairfax County), Virginia, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
vs.
Virainia State Boarp or Erections, Richmond, Virginia,
ExectoraL Boarp oF Farrrax County, Fairfax, Virginia,
Waneta M. Bucktey, General Registrar of Fairfax
County, Fairfax, Virginia, Defendants.
CoMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE
Reurer—-Filed March 17, 1964
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the Four-
teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title
42. United States Code, Section 1983, and Title 28, United
States Code, Sections 1343(3), 2201 and 2202.
2. This is a class action brought by plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, for the purpose
of having declared unconstitutional, and to enjoin enforce-
ment of, the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of
Virginia which have the effect of requiring payment of poll
taxes as a condition of registering and voting in non-Federal
elections in that State; although the constitutional and stat-
utory provisions challenged by plaintiffs, in view of the
ratification of the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, do not apply to elections of Federal
-
3
officials, they still apply to State and local elections in Vir-
ginia; the provisions in issue are contained in Sections 18,
[fol. 3] 20, 21 and 38 of the State Constitution, and See-
tions 24-17, 24-22, 24-67 and 24-120, Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended.
3. Plaintiffs Annie E. Harper, Gladys A. Berry, Curtis
Burr and Myrtle L. Burr are citizens of the United States
and residents of Virginia, who desire to register and vote
in non-Federal elections in that State, and possess all of
the necessary qualifications to do so, except that they lack
the financial means to pay necessary poll taxes as required
by the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and statutes
of Virginia.
4. Defendant Virginia State Board of Elections is an
official governmental body organized under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, which, in the exercise of gov-
ernmental authority, is responsible for supervising and co-
ordinating the administration and execution of the election
laws of that State.
5. Defendant Electoral Board of Fairfax County is an
official governmental body organized under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, which in the exercise of gov-
ernmental authority, is responsible in Fairfax County for
supervising and coordinating the administration and execu-
tion of the election laws of that State.
6. Defendant Waneta M. Buckley, General Registrar of
Fairfax County, is a duly elected or appointed govern-
mental official who, in the exercise of governmental author-
ity, is charged with adherence to, and the enforcement,
execution and administration of the election laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
7. Plaintiff Annie E. Harper is single; she formerly
supported herself principally by doing household or domes-
tie work; at present her sole regular income is derived from
Federal social security benefits. Plaintiff Harper, because
she has been a resident of Virginia for more than three
BE RE AREAL EE OL ANETTA BE OO LE I ty at
x ie
years, and has never paid poll taxes is required by the
aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and statutes of
Virginia to pay three years’ back poll taxes, plus a penalty
of 5 percent, or a total of $4.74, in order to register and
qualify to vote in non-Federal elections in Virginia.
8. Plaintiff Gladys A. Berry is single; she is not gain-
[fol.4] fully employed and has no regular income; she
provides day care for seven minor children, two of whom are
her own and five of whom are the children of her two mar-
ried daughters; both daughters are separated from their
husbands and do household or domestic work to support
themselves, plaintiff Berry, and said seven minor children.
Plaintiff Berry, because she has been a resident of Vir-
ginia for more than three years, and has never paid poll
taxes, is required by the aforesaid provisions of the Con-
stitution and statutes of Virginia to pay three years’ back
poll taxes, plus a penalty of 5 percent, or a total of $4.74,
in order to register and qualify t- vote in non-Federal
elections in Virginia.
9, Plaintiff Curtis Burr works in the building and con-
struction industry which is characterized by irregular em-
ployment because of weather conditions; in calendar 1963
his gross income derived from his employment was less
than $5,000; plaintiff Curtis Burr’s income is entirely con-
sumed in providing the necessities of life for his wife,
plaintiff Myrtle L. Burr, and their nine children. Although
plaintiff Curtis Burr paid his poll taxes for 196i and 1962,
he has not paid them for 1963, and does not expect to be
able to pay them hereafter because of the low earnings
received from his employment and the increasing cost of
supporting his family, particularly as his children grow
older. The annual poll tax in Virginia is $1.50, plus 5
percent penalty for late payments or a total of $1.58, and
in any year, in order for plaintiff Curtis Burr to register
and vote in a non-Federal election in Virginia, it will be
necessary for him to have paid three years’ back poll taxes,
plus penalties.
—
5
10. Plaintiff Myrtle L. Burr is supported by her hus-
band, plaintiff Curtis Burr, whose annual income of less
than $5,000 is entirely consumed in providing the neces-
sities of life for himself, his wife, plaintiff Myrtle L. Burr,
and their nine children. Plaintiff Myrtle L. Burr, because
she has been a resident of Virginia for more than three
years, and has never paid poll taxes, is required by the
aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and statutes of
Virginia to pay three years’ back poll taxes, plus a penalty
of 5 percent, or a total of $4.74, in order to register and
qualify to vote in non-Federal elections in Virginia.
{fol.5] 11. Each of the plaintiffs is unable, solely because
of his poverty, to pay poll taxes requ‘red by Virginia law,
and is thereby prevented from registering and voting in
non-Federal elections in that State.
12. Plaintiffs are Negroes, and they here represent not
only themselves, but other persons as well, both Negro and
white, whose lives are characterized by poverty and depri-
vation to such a degree that they cannot afford to pay
money for other than food, clothing, housing, medical eare,
and other absolute necessities of life; among those included
in the class represented by plaintiffs are many unemployed
persons, and persons employed in low paying jobs, as well
as recipients of public welfare payments, social security
benefits, unemployment compensation and retirement pen-
sions, as well as other persons variously referred to as
indigents and paupers.
15. Plaintiffs and others in the class deseribed in para-
graph 10 hereof are deprived, solely beeause of their pov-
erty, of the elective franchise in non-Federal elections in
Virginia, and they are thereby discriminated against in
favor of persons of greater financial resources.
14. The discrimination that Virginia's election laws effect
against poverty stricken residents of that State is revealed
not only in the poll tax provisions of the State’s Constitu-
tion and statutes, but also in Section 23 of the State Con-
stitution and Section 24-18, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
din a — : i
6
amended, which specifically prvhibit “paupers” from regis-
tering and voting, even if they are otherwise qualified.
15. The provisions of the Constitution and statutes of
the State of Virginia specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which
have the effect of requiring payment of poll taxes as a
condition of registering and voting in Virginia, discrimi-
nate against plaintiffs and others similarly situated, de-
priving them of their rights under the equal protection and
due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, and are therefore un-
constitutional and void.
[fol.6] 16. Defendants, by engaging in the enforcement,
execution and administration of the provisions of the Con-
stitution and statutes of Virginia specified in paragraph 2
hereof, have deprived and will continue to deprive, unless re-
strained, plaintiffs and others similarly situated of their
rights under the equal protection and due process clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
17. The damage and injury done to plaintiffs by reason
of their being deprived of the foregoing rights is continu-
ing and irreparable, and there is no adequate remedy at law.
Wuererorg, plaintiffs pray that this Court:
A. Convene a statutory court of three judges pursuant
to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2284, for the pur-
pose of hearing and determining this cause.
B. Adjudge and declare to be in violation of the Consti-
tution of the United States, and therefore void, all pro-
visions of the Constitution and statutes of Virginia which
have the effect of requiring payment of poll taxes as a
condition of registering and voting in elections in that
State.
C. Issue a preliminary and a permanent injunction
(1) Restraining and preventing defendants, their agents,
servants, and employees and all other persons in active
oo
7
concert with them who receive actual notice of the order
of the Court by personal service or otherwise from en-
forcing, executing, administering, or in any manner giving
effect to, the provisions of the Constitution and statutes
of Virginia which have the effect of requiring payment of
poll taxes a condition of registering and voting in elections
in that State.
(2) Directing defendant Virginia State Board of Elec-
tions (a) to notify those governmental officials and gov-
ernmental boards and bodies of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the activities of which said defendant is author-
ized by law to supervise, direct, or coordinate, that the
provisions of the Constitution and statutes of Virginia
which have the effect of requiring payment of poll taxes
as a condition of registering and voting in elections in that
State are unconstitutional and void, and (b) to instruct
[fol. 7] said governmental officials and governmental boards
and bodies to cease enforcing, executing, administering or in
any manner giving effect to, the provisions of the Consti-
tution and statutes of Virginia which have the effect of
requiring payment of poll taxes as a condition of register-
ing and voting in elections in that State.
D. Grant plaintiffs such other and further relief as may
be just and equitable in the premises.
Philip Schwartz
Lawrence Speiser, e/o American Civil Liberties Union
and National Capital Area Civil Liberties Union, Suite
803, 1101 Vermont Avenue, Washington 5, D. C.;
Allison W. Brown, Jr., Suite 705, 1000 Connecticut Ave-
nue, Washington 6, D. C.;
Philip Schwartz, 2054 14th Street, North, Arlington,
Virginia; Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Ss
Commonwealth of Virginia,
County of Bairfax, sa:
Annie EL Harper, being duly sworn, deposes and. says
that she resides at Route 1, Box 28, Alexandria (Mairtax
County), Virginia; Chat she has read: the foregoing com
plaint and knows the contents thereof and Chat the same
are true to her knowledge except as to the mattors therem
imparted to her by others, and as to those mattors she
believes them to be true,
Annie BE. Harper
Subseribed and sworn to before me this lth day of
Mareh, 1904, .
Wells A. Proctor, Notary Pubhe. My Commission Ex
pires April t, 190s,
[fol 8]
Commonwealth of Virginia,
County of Maurtaa, ss:
Gladys A. Berry, being duly sworn, deposes and: says
that she resides at Route t, Box SO, Alexandria (Mairtax
County), Virginiay that she has read the foregomg com
plaint and knows the contents thereat and that the samo
are true to hor knowledge except as to the matters therein
imparted to her by others, and as to those mattors: she
believes them to be true,
Gladys A. Borry
Subseribed and sworn to before me this ttth day of
Mareh, 1904,
Wolls Al Procter, Notary Publie, My Commission [x
prres April t, tee,
Commonwealth of Virginia,
County of Baurfax, ss.:
Curtis Burr, betas duly sworn, deposes and says that he
resides at S40 Quander Road, Aloxandray (Mairfax County),
el ;
Virginia; that he has read the foregoing complaint and
knows the contents thereof and that the same are true to
his knowledge exeept as to the matters therein imparted
to him by others, and as to those matters he believes them
to be true,
Curtis Burr
Subseribed and sworn to before me this Mth day of
Mareh, (964,
Wells A, Proctor, Notary Publie. My Commission Ex
pires April t, toa?,
[fol 9]
Commonwealth of Virginia,
County of Mairfax, ss.:
Myrtle 1. Burr, being duly sworn, deposes and says that
sho resides at S40) Quander Road, Alexandria (Mairfax
County), Virginia; that sho has read the foregoing eom
plant and knows the eentents thereof and that the same
are true fo her knowledge exeept as to the matters therein
imparted to her by others, and as to those matters she
believes them to be true,
Myrtle LL. Burr
Subseribod and sworn to before mo this ith day of
Mareh, (904,
Wells AL Proetor, Notary Publie. My Commission Ex
pires April t, 1967,
10
[fol. 10} [File endorsement omitted]
Ix tHe Unitep States District Court
For THE EasTeRN District OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA Division
Civil Action No. 3253
In Te: MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF GLADYS A. Berry
ron Leave To Sur iv Forma Pavperis—Filed March 17, 1964
United States of America,
Eastern District of Virginia,
County of Fairfax, ss.:
Gladys A. Berry, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I
am entitled to and intend to commence a civil action in this
Court against Virginia State Board of Elections, Electoral
Board of Fairfax County and Waneta M. Buckley, General
Registrar of Fairfax County. The nature of said action
is to have declared unconstitutional, and to enjoin enforce-
ment of, the provisions of the Constitution and statutes
of Virginia which have the effect of requiring payment of
poll taxes as a condition of registering and voting in non-
Federal elections in that State. I believe that I am entitled
to the redress sought in said action because, as more fully
shown by the complaint filed herewith, the Constitution and
statutes of Virginia, which deny to persons otherwise fully
qualified the right to vote because they do not have the
economic means to pay the poll tax, violate the United States
Constitution. Because of my poverty, I am unable to pay the
costs of said action or to give security therefor and to pro-
vide myself with the necessities of life.
Wherefore, affiant prays that she may have leave to prose-
cute said action in forma pauperis, pursuant to Title 28,
United States Code, Section 1915.
Gladys A. Berry
a
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th d&y of
March, 1964.
Wells A. Proctor, Notary Public. My Commission Ex-
pires April 1, 1967.
11
{fol. 11] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHe Unitep States District Court
For tHe Eastern District or Vircinia
ALEXANDRIA Drvision
Civil Action No. 3253
In THE Matter OF THE APPLICATION oF CuRTIS BURR FOR
Leave To Sue in Forma Pavuperis—Filed March 17, 1964
United States of America,
Eastern District of Virginia,
County of Fairfax, ss.:
Curtis Burr, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I
am entitled to and intend to commence a civil action in this
Court against Virginia State Board of Elections, Electoral
Board of Fairfax County and Waneta M. Buckley, General
Registrar of Fairfax County. The nature of said action is
to have declared unconstitutional, and to enjoin enforce-
ment of, the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of
Virginia which have the effect of requiring payment of poll
taxes as a condition of registering and voting in non-
Federal elections in that State. I believe that I am entitied
to the redress sought in said action because, as more fully
shown by the complaint filed herewith, the Constitution and
statutes of Virginia, which deny to persons otherwise fully
qualified the right to vote because they do not have the
economic means to pay the poll tax, violate the United States
Constitution. Because of my poverty, I am unable to pay
the costs of said action or to give security therefor and to
provide myself with the necessities of life.
Wherefore, affiant prays that he may have leave to prose-
cute said action in forma pauperis, pursuant to Title 28,
United States Code, Section 1915.
12
Curtis Burr
Subscribed and sworn to before me this I4th day of
March, 1964.
Wells A. Proctor, Notary Public. My Commission Ex.
pires April 1, 1967.
[fol. 12] [File endorsement omitted |
Ix tee Unrrep Srares Districr Court
For tue Eastern Disrwicr or Virarnia
Auexanpria Division
Civil Action No, 32538
In tue Marrer or tus Apruication or Myrrie L. Burr
ror Leave to Sue wy Forma Pavrenis—Filed Mareh U7, 1964
United States of America,
Eastern District of Virginia,
County of Fairfax, ss.:
Myrtle L. Burr, being duly sworn, deposes and says: |
am entitled to and intend to commence a civil action in this
Court against Virginia State Board of Elections, Electoral
Board of Fairfax County and Waneta M. Buckley, General
Registrar of Fairfax County. The nature of said action
is to have declared unconstitutional, and to enjoin enforee-
ment of, the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of
Virginia which have the effect of requiring payment of poll
taxes as a condition of registering and voting in non-
Federal elections in that State. [believe that Tam entitled
to the redress sought in said action beeause, as more fully
shown by the complaint filed herewith, the Constitution and
statutes of Virginia, which deny to persons otherwise fully
SES ARF HERE AGNES RRR ert Tate HENGE
| —
qualified the right to vote because they do not have the
economic means to pay the poll tax, violate the United
States Constitution, Because of my poverty, | am unable
to pay the costs of said action or to give security therefor
and to provide myself with the necessities of life.
13
Wherefore, affiant prays that she may have leave to —
cute said action in forma pauperis, pursuant to Title 28
United States Code, Seetion 1915.
Myrrie L. Burr
Subseribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of
March, 1964.
Wells A. Proctor, Notary Public. My Commission Ex-
pires April 1, 1967.
[ fol. 13] [File endorsement omitted]
In tue Unirep Srares Disrricr Courr
For tur Eastern District or Virainia
Auexanpria Division
Civil Action No. 3253
Ix rue Marrer or tur Appuication or Annis E. Harrver
ron Leave to Sur rn Forma Paureris—Filed Mareh 17, 1964
United States of America,
Eastern District of Virginia,
County of Fairfax, ss.:
Annie EK, Harper, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I
am entitled to and intend to commence a civil action in this
Court against Virginia State Board of Elections, Electoral
Board of Fairfax County and Waneta M. Buckley, General
Registrar of Fairfax County. The nature of said action is
to have declared unconstitutional, and to enjoin enforee-
ment of, the provisions of the Constitution and statutes
of Virginia which have the effect of requiring payment of
poll taxes as a condition of registering and voting in non-
Federal elections in that State. I believe that I am entitled
to the redress sought in said action because, as more fully
shown by the complaint filed herewith, the Constitution and
statutes of Virginia, which deny to persons otherwise fully
qualified the right to vote because they do not have the
economic means to pay the poll tax, violate the United States
Constitution. Because of my poverty, I am unable to pay
the costs of said action or to give security therefor and to
provide myself with the necessities of life.
14
Wherefore, affiant prays that she may have leave to prose-
cute said action in forma pauperis, pursuant to Title 28,
United States Code, Section 1915.
Anniz E. HarPeR
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of
March, 1964.
Wells A. Proctor, Notary Public. My Commission Ex-
pires April 1, 1967.
[fol. 18] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHE Unirep States District Court
For tHE Eastern District OF VIRGINIA
At ALEXANDRIA
Civil Action No. 3253
[Title omitted]
Pre-TRIAL Orper—April 2, 1964
The defendants herein are directed to file their respective
answers, if not already filed, together with such additional
pleadings as they deem proper, on or before April 20, 1964.
The taking of pre-trial depositions, the filing of interrog-
atories, requests for admissions, and other pre-trial pro-
cedures should be concluded on or before June 1, 1964. No
15
additional motions, other pleadings or further pre-trial
procedures may be filed or indulged in after June 1, 1964,
except by leave of Court for good cause shown.
All proposed exhibits and names and addresses of all
witnesses who may be called to testify should be filed with
the Clerk of this Court (in Alexandria) on or before July
1, 1964. If the exhibits are voluminous, they should be
marked by the Clerk at least two days prior to the date of
trial. Formal proof of exhibits will be deemed waived un-
[fol. 19] less objected to in writing seven days prior to the
~ date of trial. Copies of all exhibits, lists of witnesses and
briefs should be mailed to all parties of record and the
members of the Three-Judge Court at their respective
addresses.
Hearing on all motions, unless otherwise ordered by the
Court, will be deferred uatil the date of the hearing on the
merits.
Plaintiffs’ briefs should be filed on or before August 1,
1964. Defendants’ briefs should be filed on or before Sep-
tember 1, 1964. Plaintiffs’ reply brief, if any, should be filed
on or before September 10, 1964.
The date for the hearing of this case upon the merits
will be deferred until after another Three-Judge Court of
this District renders its decision in similar cases now pend-
ing before it, at which time the Court will fix the date for
the hearing of the above-styled matter.
The Clerk will forthwith mail copies of this pre-trial or-
der to all counsel of record.
At Alexandria
April 2, 1964
/s/ Oren R. Lewis
United States District Judge
BEPLE SIE PRE YLLLEL LOE LDL EE LEE NED EINE NE NEE
16
[fol. 22] [File endorsement omitted]
In THE Unirep States District Court
For THE Eastern District oF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA Division
Civil Action No. 3253
[Title omitted]
Answer—Filed April 9, 1964
In answer to the complaint filed herein against the Elec-
toral Board of Fairfax County, Virginia, Waneta M.
Buckley, General Registrar of Fairfax County and others,
the Defendants said Electoral Board and Waneta M.
Buckley, respectively, by their counsel, state as follows:
1. That the Electoral Board of Fairfax County and
Waneta M. Buckley, General Registrar of Fairfax County,
adopt as their answer and defense to the complaint and
other pleadings, present and future, filed herein, any and
all answers and defensive pleadings, present and future,
filed and to be filed by the Attorney General of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia for and on behalf of the Board of
Elections of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
And having thus fully answered, they pray to be thus
dismissed with cost to Plaintiff.
Electoral Board of Fairfax County, Waneta M.
Buckley, General Registrar, Fairfax County, Vir-
ginia, By Donald C. Crounse, Counsel.
Ralph G. Louk, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Fairfax
County, Virginia, Counsel for Defendant.
Donald C. Crounse, Ass’t Commonwealth’s Attorney,
Fairfax County, Virginia, Counsel for Defendant.
17
[fol. 23] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
[fol. 24] [File endorsement omitted]
In THE Unitep States District Court
For THE Eastern District oF VIRGINIA
At Alexandria
Civil Action No. 3253
[Title omitted]
Motion to Dismiss—Filed April 13, 1964
Now comes the defendant, the Virginia State Board of
Elections, by counsel, and moves the Court to dismiss this
action for the following reasons:
1. The Treasurer of Fairfax County, Virginia and
the Clerk of the Cireuit Court of Fairfax County, Vir-
ginia are charged by the Constitution and laws of
Virginia with certain duties in the administration and
conduct of elections and, therefore, are indispensable
parties not within the jurisdiction of this Court and
without whom the relief prayed for in the Complaint
cannot be granted;
2. The complainants lack the capacity and standing to
bring this suit;
3. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the persons and
over the subject matter;
[fol. 25] 4. The complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
This Motion is based upon the pleadings and exhibits on
file and to be filed in this action and the authorities at-
tached hereto.
Virginia State Board of Elections, By: Richard N.
Harris, Counsel.
Desai
18
Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, Su-
preme Court—State Library Building, Richmond, Virginia
23219.
Richard N. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Supreme
Court—State Library Building, Richmond, Virginia 25219.
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
(fol. 26]
ATTACHMENT TO Motion to Dismiss
Authorities Relied upon in Support of this Motton:
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
Constitution of Virginia, Seetions 23, 38, 173
Sratvurory Provisions:
Title 24, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended
TEXTs:
Barron and Holtzoff on Federal Practice and Proce-
durc, Volume 2, Seetions 514 and 515
Feverat. Reues or Civi. Procepure:
Rule 12
Cases:
Jeffers v. Whitley, 165 F. Supp. 951 (M.D. N.C. 199s)
Covington vy. Edwards, 264 F. 2d 780 (4th Cir, 1959)
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 28 Mass. 538,
11 Piek. S588 (1832)
Opinion of the Justices to the House, 7 Me, 497 (1881)
Alleghany County v. City ef Pittsburgh, 281 Pa, 300,
127 A. 724 (1924)
Estate of Hoffen, 70 Wis. 522, 36 N.W. 407 (SSS)
Lee County v. Lackie, 30 Ark, 764 (1875)
Hutchings vy. Thompson, 10 Cush. 238 (Mass. 1802)
a
Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277, 58 S. Ct. 205, S82
L. Ed. 252 (1937
Butler v. Thompson, 97 F. —_ 17 (ELD. Va. 1951),
aff'md per curtam 341 U.S. 9387, TLS. Ct. 1002, 95
L. Ed. 919
[fol. 27] Saunders v. Wilkins, 12 FB. Yd 285 (4th Cir.
1945), cert, den, 328 U.S. S70, G6 S. Ct. 1862, 90 L. Kd.
1640 |
Pirtle v - Brow n, LIS F. 2d 21S (6th Cir, 1941), cert.
den. 314 US . G21, G2S. Ct. G4, 86 L. Ed, 499
Wheeler v. State, 219 Miss. 129, 68 So, 2d 517 (1% e4
app. dism'‘d. and cert. den. 346 U.S. 852, 74.8.
67, 9S L. Ed. 307, reh. den. 346 U.S. 905, 748. Ct ;
216, 9S L. Ed. 404
Thomas v. Chamberlain, 143 F. Supp. 671 (Ee. D. Tenn.
1955), affm'd. per curiam 236 F.2d 417
Hewitt vy. City of Jacksonville, USS F. 2d 423 (Sth Cir.
1951), cert. den, 842 U.S. 835, 728. Ct. d8, 96 L. Ed.
631
[fol. 28] [File endorsement omitted]
ly tue Unitrep Srares District Court
For tue Easte:x District or Virginia
Ar ALEXANDRIA
Civil Action No. 3253
| Title omitted]
Answer or THE Derenpant, Virginia State Boarp or
Exvecrions—Filed April 20, 1964
First Defense
The complaint fails to state a claim against this defen-
dant upon which relief can be granted,
CAPR, Ce TORR ee Watts AD
20
Seeond Defense
The plaintiffs have no right to bring this suit in forma
pauperis.
Third Defense
In the alternative, this defendant alleges and avers that
the plaintiffs lack the capacity and standing to bring this
suit.
Fourth Defense
This Court lacks jurisdiction over the persons and over
the subject matter of this action.
(fol. 29] Fifth Defense
1. This defendant denies that this Court has jurisdiction
under any of the articles, sections, amendments, titles or
code sections cited in paragraph (1) of the complaint.
9. This defendant admits that Amendment XXIV of the
United States Constitution applies only to federal elections
and not to State elections, but denies that the provisions
of the Constitution of Virginia and of the Code of Virginia
cited by the plaintiff in paragraph (2) apply only to state
and local elections and not to elections of Federal officials.
This defendant avers that only in so far as these provi-
sions of the Constitution and Code of Virginia have been
affected by Amendment XXIV of the United States Con-
stitution do they not apply to Federal elections. Further,
this defendant avers that the provisions of the Constitution
and Code of Virginia speak for themselves. It is averred
that the remainder of paragraph (2) does not require an
answer.
3. This defendant is without information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments of
_ paragraph (3) of the complaint.
4. This defendant admits the averments of paragraphs
(4), (5) and (6) of the complaint.
ae te Se -
5 tp” ORIN teghe:.o gr VaReE Ue ae Teen
_—
21
5. This defendant is without information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in
paragraphs (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the complaint, and
avers that the Constitution and laws of Virginia speak for
themselves relative to registration and qualification for
voting in this State.
ifol. 30] 6. This defendant is without information suff-
cient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the aver-
ments in paragraphs (11) and (12) of the complaint.
7. This defendant denies the averments of paragraphs
(13), (14), (15), (16) and (17) of the complaint.
Wherefore, said defendant demands that this Court re-
fuse to grant any of the prayers of the plaintiffs and fur-
ther demand that this action against it be dismissed with
costs herein incurred paid by the plaintiffs.
Virginia State Board of Elections, By: Richard N.
Harris, Counsel.
Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, Supreme
Court—State Library Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219,
Richard N. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Supreme
Court—State Library Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219,
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
22
[fol. 31] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHe Unirep States District Court
For tHe Eastern District or VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA Division
Civil Action No. 3253
[Title omitted]
Motion ror Leave To AMEND CoMPLAINT—
Filed May 26, 1964
Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to amend their com-
plaint on file herein in the following particulars:
follows:
(a) Plaintiffs further seek to have declared uncon-
stitutional, and to enjoin enforcement of, Section 23
of the Constitution of Virginia and Section 24-18 of the
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, insofar as they
specify “paupers” among the classes of persons dis-
qualified from registering and voting in Virginia.
2. Adding to Paragraph 15, between the second clause
of the sentence and the comma immediately following it,
the following: “and which prohibit ‘paupers’ from regis-
tering and voting.”
3. Adding to Paragraphs B, C(1), C(2)(a) and C(2) (b) i
of the Prayer, by inserting after the word “voting” where
it appears in each of said paragraphs, the following:
“and which prohibit ‘paupers’ from registering and vot-
ing,”.
[fol. 32] The grounds of this motion are that justice so re-
quires, and in order that the important constitutional issue
involved in this proceeding be fully litigated.
Philip Schwartz, Esquire.
EECA GL PR ome
1. Adding a Subparagraph (a) to Paragraph 2 to read as
iw :
Lawrence Speiser, Esquire, c/o American Civil Liberties
Union & National Capital Area Civil Liberties Union, Suite
803, 1101 Vermont Avenue, Washington 5, D. C.
Allison W. Brown, Jr., Esquire, Suite 705, 1000 Connecti-
cut Avenue, Washington 6, D. C.
Philip Schwartz, Esquire, 2054 14th Street, North, Arling-
ton, Virginia.
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
[fol. 38] [File endorsement omitted]
In THE Unitep States District Court
For tHe Eastern District or VIRGINIA
At ALEXANDRIA
Civil Action No. 3253
Alexandria Division
Anniz E. Harper, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Virainta State Boarp or Exections, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 4658
Norfolk Division
' Mrs. Evetyn Butts, Plaintiff,
v.
Avpertis Harrison, Governor, et al., Defendants.
OrperR Granting Motion to AMEND CoMPLAINT AND ALSO
Sertine Date ror HearinG oN THE Merits, ETC.—June
9, 1964
It is Adjudged und Ordered that the motion of Annie E.
Harper, et al., to amend their complaint in the manner
i ESRI Me BOT ERE.
set forth in the motion filed May 26, 1964 is granted. The
defendants may adopt as responsive pleadings to the
amended complaint the pleadings that they have already
filed. If they desire to file additional responsive pleadings to
the amended complaint they may do so on or before July
10, 1964.
[fol.39] It is Ordered that these cases are set for hearing
upon the merits and upon all motions, including motions
for summary judgment, on October 21, 1964 at 10:00 o’clock
A.M., D.S.T., in the United States Courthouse, Alexandria,
Virginia.
24
Let the Clerk mail copies of this order to all counsel of
record.
_ John D. Butzner, Jr., United States District Judge.
June 9, 1964
[fol. 40] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHe Unrrep States Districr Court
For tHe Eastern District oF VIRGINIA
At ALEXANDRIA
Civil Action No. 3253
[Title omitted]
ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT, Vircrnta State Boarp oF
ELEcTIONS, TO THE AMENDED CompLaint—Filed June 29, 1964
Comes now the defendant, Virginia State Board of Elec-
tions, by counsel, and adopts as its responsive pleadings
to the Amended Complaint the Motion to Dismiss and the
Answer it has already filed, amending, however, the Fifth
Defense, paragraph 2, of the Answer to read as follows:
| .
Fifth Defense
2. This defendant admits that Amendment XXIV of
the United States Constitution applies only to Federal elec-
tions and not to State elections, but denies that the provi-
sions of the Constitution of Virginia and of the Code of
Virginia cited by the plaintiff in paragraph 2 apply only to
state and local elections and not to elections of Federal
officials. This defendant avers that only in so far as these
provisions of the Constitution and Code of Virginia have
been affected by Amendment XXIV of the United States
[fol. 41] Constitution do they not apply to Federal elections.
Further, this defendant avers that the provisions of the
Constitution and Code of Virginia cited by the plaintiff
speak for themselves and are valid, constitutional and en-
forceable. It is averred that the remainder of paragraph
2 does not require an answer.
Virginia State Board of Elections, By: Richard N.
Harris, Counsel.
Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, Supreme
Court—State Library Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219,
Richard N. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Supreme
Court—State Library Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219,
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
26
{fol. 57]
In tHe Unitep States District Court
For THE Eastern District oF VIRGINIA
ALEXANpRIA Drvision
Civil Action No. 3253
Annie E. Harper, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Vircinia State Boarp or Exesctions, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 3346
Mrs. Evetyn Butts, Plaintiff,
v.
Axpertis Harrison, Governor, et al., Defendants.
Courtroom No. 1,
U. S. Post Office
and Courthouse
Alexandria, Virginia
Transcript of Hearing—October 21, 1964
Met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 o’clock a. m.
Before: Honorable Albert V. Bryan, Cireuit Judge, Hon-
orable Oren R. Lewis, District Judge, Honorable John D.
Butzner, Jr., District Judge.
[fol.58] APPEARANCES:
J. A. Jordan, Jr., Norfolk, Virginia, Len W. Holt, Wash-
ington, D. C., and Max Dean and Robert L. Segar, both of
—
Flint, Michigan, counsel for plaintiffs in No. 3346; and Ira
M. Lechner and Allison W. Brown, Jr., both of Washington,
D. C., and Philip Schwartz, Arlington County, Virginia,
counsel for plaintiffs in No. 3253.
Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, and
Richard N. Harris, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia,
both of Richmond, Virginia, counsel for defendants Virginia
State Board of Elections in No. 3253 and counsel for Al-
bertis Harrison, Governor, in No. 3346, Donald C. Crounse,
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney, Fairfax County, Vir-
ginia, counsel for Electoral Board of Fairfax County and
Waneta M. Buckley, General Registrar of Fairfax County,
Virginia, in No. 3253, Alfred W. Whitehurst, Common-
wealth’s Attorney, City of Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia, coun-
sel for Mary Dudley, City Registrar, City of Norfolk, Alex
H. Bell, City Treasurer, City of Norfolk, and William
Prieur, Clerk, The Corporation Court, City of Norfolk,
all of Norfolk, Virginia, in No. 3346.
[fol. 59]
OrAL ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS BY Ricwarp
N. Harris, Esquire, Assistant ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. Harris:
[fol.62] Now, with reference to the complaints themselves,
in the Harper complaint we find this paragraph:
“Plaintiffs are Negroes, and they here represent not
only themselves, but other persons as well, both Negro and
white, whose lives are characterized by poverty and depriva-
tion to such a degree that they cannot afford to pay money
for other than food, clothing, housing, medical care, and
other absolute necessities of life; among those included in
the class represented by plaintiffs are many unemployed
persons, and persons employed in low paying jobs, as well
as recipients of public welfare payments, social secuity bene-
fits, unemployment compensation and retirement pensions,
as well as other persons variously referred to as indigents
and paupers.”
28
If that isn’t an allegation under oath of somebody be-
ing poor, I don’t know what it is, and to my definition, in my
definition, “poor” is being a pauper, as that word is used in
Section—
[fol. 63] Judge Butzner: Do you mean every poor person
is excluded from voting and could be challenged in Virginia?
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. I believe exactly what Section 23
of the Constitution says.
Judge Butzner: And that the regular procedures for
challenging are available for that.
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
[fol. 64] Judge Lewis: He can challenge him. Can he do
it successfully, in your opinion?
Mr. Harris: That is what I was getting ready to com-
ment on. The word “pauper”, the definition of the word
“pauper” is what we are dealing with here. What does the
word “pauper” mean as it is used in the Virginia Constitu-
tion? Now, your question would have to be answered in that
sense, what is a pauper as that word is used, and, in my
brief, I attempt to show in what sense I think the word :
“pauper” has, as used and is being used in the Virginia
Constitution.
Now, again, these gentlemen have used the Federal figure
of what a pauper is, at least some of them have. The other
side seems to disagree because they make allegation that
their plaintiffs earn more than the $3,000 that President
Johnson seems to think is the median figure. But you are
dealing here with the definition of the word “pauper” in .
the Virginia Constitution, and | would have to answer
Judge Lewis’ question and Judge Butzner’s question in
terms of what does that word mean. You can challenge
it, but the question is, who is the pauper after you make the
challenge and how do you establish just what a pauper is.
We are dealing here with a pauper in the sense of the use
of that word in Section 23.
ee
29
[fol.65] Now, I am saying, and my position really is, that
just using the common sense definition of the word “nauper”,
somebody who doesn’t own anything, these people have come
in here and told you gentlemen that they do not own any-
thing, that they own so little they can’t afford to pay $1.50.
Judge Bryan: That is preliminary to my main concern,
that is, the historical meaning of this “pauper”. But how can
you say, Mr. Harris, that he pleads himself out of court by
pleading himself to be a pauper? Couldn’t he still attack it,
even if he were conceded to be a pauper?
Mr. Harris: How can you have standing to attack a poll
tax and say that it, as a prerequisite to voting, denies me a
Constitutional right when you are excluded from voting
even if you can afford, even if everything you say is true?
In other words, even if he wins, he can’t vote.
Judge Bryan: You are addressing that argument to the
poll tax part of this case—
Mr. Harris: That is right.
Judge Bryan: —and not to the pauper part.
Mr. Harris: That is right. Obviously, I am addressing
it to their right to challenge the poll tax.
[fol.66] Judge Bryan: The poll tax, but not the right to
challenge the pauper position.
Mr. Harris: That is quite correct. * * * But, I am
directing my remarks now solely and only to their right
to challenge the poll tax, saying that even if they are suc-
cessful in getting the poll tax declared unconstitutional,
then they still would not be able to vote because they are
paupers. Then, for that reason, they cannot possibly be
plaintiffs who can achieve the result they want, and, there-
fore, they have no standing here. They are not persons who
are qualified to vote in the first place, poll tax or no poll tax.
Judge Lewis: You do not think any court would construe
everybody in the class referred to in this suit that is ques-
tioning the poll tax provision would be in the category of
paupers as referred to in the Virginia Constitution, do you?
Mr. Harris: I am merely, sir, relying upon the allega-
tions of the plaintiffs themselves in their complaint, which
ERSGTAIAG: RNR Ee™ RAR SERIE Ty ea amar ASR eae rare rate RNR eR SHE
ait
30
is all I can do on a motion to dismiss. I have to rely on
what they themselves say about themselves.
[fol.68] Judge Butzner: Now, Mrs. Butts alleges, as you
quote on page 15 of your brief, “Plaintiff is an adult Negro
citizen of small financial means barely adequate to provide
for the necessities of living.” Now, that is describing her.
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Judge Butzner: That, in your opinion, is a pauper; ac-
cepting all of that as true,—
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Judge Butzner: —you say a person who meets that de-
scription cannot legally vote in Virginia?
Mr. Harris: Coupled with the affidavit in forma pauperis,
yes, sir.
{fol.69] Judge Bryan: The up-shot of your argument
would be, as far as pauper, as opposed to the pauper pro-
vision is concerned—
Mr. Harris: Right.
Judge Bryan: —is that the plaintiff here has not brought
[fol. 70] himself within the real, which is the historical,
meaning of “pauper”, and, therefore, is not in a position
to attack that. |
Mr. Harris: No, sir, my position is not that. My posi-
tion is that the plaintiffs here are not in a position to
attack the poll tax as being unconstitutional because they
are excluded from voting because they are paupers.
* * * * * * *
[fol.71] Judge Bryan: All right, sir.
Mr. Button, is there anything you want to say, sir?
Mr. Button: No, sir.
eee
[fol. 72] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHE Unitep States District Court
For tHe Eastern District or VIRGINIA
At ALEXANDRIA
Civil Action No. 3253
Annie E. Harper, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Virainia State Boarp or Exections, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 3346
Mrs. Evetyn Butts, Plaintiff,
v.
Ausertis Harrison, Governor, et al., Defendants.
(Argued October 21, 1964 Decided November 10, 1964.)
Before Bryan, Circuit Judge, and Lewis and Butzner,
District Judges.
J. A. Jordan, Jr., Norfolk, Virginia, Len W. Holt, Wash-
ington, D. C., and Max Dean and Robert L. Segar, both of
Flint, Michigan, counsel for plaintiffs in No. 3346; and Ira
M. Lechner and Allison W. Brown, Jr., both of Washing-
ton, D. C. and Philip Schwartz, Arlington County, Virginia,
counsel for plaintiffs in No. 3253.
Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia and
Richard N. Harris, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia,
both of Richmond, Virginia, counsel for defendants Virginia
State Board of Elections in No. 3253 and counsel for Al-
bertis Harrison, Governor, in No. 3346; Donald C. Crounse,
aay i EAC OSL ATER, LAT NTRS eT
32
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney, Fairfax County, Vir-
ginia, counsel for Electoral Board of Fairfax County and
Waneta M. Buckley, General Registrar of Fairfax County,
Virginia in No. 3253; Alfred W. Whitehurst, Common-
wealth’s Attorney, City of Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia, coun-
sel for Mary Dudley, City Registrar, City of Norfolk, Alex
H. Bell, City Treasurer, City of Norfolk, and William
Prieur, Clerk, the Corporation Court, City of Norfolk, all
of Norfolk, Virginia in No. 3346.
(fol. 73]
Opinion Per Curtam—November 10, 1964
Poll tax payment as a prerequisite to voting in State and
local elections, exacted by the Constitution and statutes cf
Virginia, is attacked in these two consolidated actions as
violative of the no-abridgement and equal protection com-
mands of the Federal Fourteenth Amendment. A corollary
attack is made upon the provision of the State constitution
excluding “paupers” as persons entitled to vote in any elec-
tion.”
The common premise of the assaults is: that the plain-
tiffs are financially unable to pay the tax—$1.50 for each of
the 3 preceding years for which the elector was assessable ;
and that they and other State citizens similarly impecuni-
ous are thereby deprived, solely on account of their poverty,
of the privilege to vote, and at the same time they are also
denied a privilege accorded other citizens not so poor.
Notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ impoverishment and eligi-
bility to vote, their denunciation of the State constitutional
and statutory poll tax requirements has been squarely re-
‘Va. Constitution §§ 18, 20, 21 and 38; 1950 Code of Va. as
amended §§ 24-17, 24-22, 24-67, and 24-120. The separation by
race or color, as required in § 38 of the Va. constitution and
§ 24-120 of the Code of Virginia, in the listing of persons who
have paid the poll taxes was declared invalid by this court in
Hamm v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 230 F.Supp. 156,
aff’d October 26, 1964, US. ——.
2 Va. Constitution § 23; 1950 Code of Va. § 24-18, as amended.
= |
eee <!
ee :
futed by the Supreme Court in Breedlove v. Suttles, 302
U.S. 277, 283 (1937). We are not at liberty to deviate
from that precept. There the Court considered arguments
[fol. 74] akin to those of the plaintiffs here, including the
economic factor, and rejected them. This court adhered
to that precedent in Butler y. Thompson, 97 F. Supp. 17, 22
(1951), aff’d per curiam 341 U.S. 937. In this it adverted
to the like holding of this Cireuit in Saunders v. Wilkins,
152 F.2d 235, 237 (1945), cert. denied 328 U.S. 870, rehear-
ing denied 329 U.S. 824, an appeal touching the Virginia
constitutional and statutory clauses now questioned. The
tax is levied upon every adult resident irrespective of his
intent to vote.* Moreover, no racial discrimination is ex-
hibited in its application as a condition to voting. Cf.
Butler v. Thompson, supra, 97 F. Supp. 17, 21.
Adequate answer to the attack upon the exclusion of
paupers is that this disqualification—apparently of early
historical origin and prevalent in several States—has not
been employed to prevent the plaintiffs or their class from
voting. Plaintiffs do not essay a showing that they, or
anyone else in destitute circumstances, have been designated
“paupers” in the sense of the Virginia constitution. There-
fore, an expression by us upon the meaning and implications
of that term would be entirely academic and without place
here.
The complaint in each of these cases will be dismissed.
Dismissed.
* Va. Constitution § 173; Code of Va. § 58-49,
34
[fol. 75] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHE Unitep States District Court
For tHe Eastern District oF VirGINia
At ALEXANDRIA
Civil Action No. 3253
Annie E. Harper, et al., Plaintiffs,
Vv.
Virainia State Boarp or Evections, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 3346
Mrs. Evetyn Butts, Plaintiff,
v.
Avpertis Harrison, Governor, et al., Defendants.
Fixat Orver—November 10, 1964
Upon consideration of the pleadings, the exhibits, the
stipulations and other parts of the record in these cases, as
well as the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, for rea-
sons stated in the Court’s written opinion this day filed,
it is
Ordered that each of the said complaints be, and it is
hereby, dismissed.
Albert V. Bryan, United States Circuit Judge, Oren
R. Lewis, United States District Judge, John D.
Butzner, Jr., United States District Judge.
November 10, 1964
aa
[fol. 76] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHE Unitep States Districr Court
For THE Eastern District oF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA Division
Civil Action No. 3253
[Title omitted]
Notice oF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
Unirep States—Filed December 4, 1964
I. Notice is hereby given that Annie E. Harper, Gladys
A. Berry, Curtis Burr and Myrtle L. Burr, plaintiffs in this
cause, hereby appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States from the final order dismissing the complaint,
entered in this action on November 10, 1964.
This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1253.
II. The Clerk will please prepare a transcript of record
in this cause, for transmission to the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States, and include in said transcript
the following:
1. Complaint filed March 17, 1964.
Application of Annie E. Harper for leave to sue in
forma pauperis.
3. Application of Gladys A. Berry for leave to sue in
forma pauperis.
4. Application of Curtis Burr for leave to sue in forma
pauperis.
5. Application of Myrtle L. Burr for leave to sue in
forma pauperis.
6. Order of the Court entered March 17, 1964 granting
plaintiffs’ applications to sue in forma pauperis.
{fol. 77] 7. Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed April 18,
1964.
8. Defendants’ answer filed April 20, 1964.
9. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint
filed May 26, 1964.
10. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment filed May
26, 1964.
11. Order of the Court entered June 9, 1964 permitting
amendment of the complaint and setting date for
hearing on the merits and on all motions.
12. Defendants’ answer to the amended complaint filed
June 29, 1964.
13. Transcribed portions, on file in the Clerk’s office, of
the hearing before the Court on October 21, 1964,
consisting of 54 pages.
14. Opinion of the Court entered November 10, 1964.
15. Final order of the Court dismissing the complaint
entered November 10, 1964.
16. This notice of appeal.
II. The following questions are presented by this appeal:
A. Do provisions of Virginia law which require the
payment of three years’ cumulative poll taxes as a
prerequisite to voting in state and local elections
violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment by denying the franchise to paupers and
indigents and other persons who are without eco-
nomic means to pay the taxes, but who are otherwise
qualified to vote?
B. Are plaintiffs who brought suit challenging the
constitutionality of Virginia laws requiring payment
of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting in state and
local elections on the ground that such requirement
discriminatorily disenfranchises persons without the
economic means to pay such taxes, and where the
State asserts in defense that the plaintiffs are in-
ei ik ye et SE TTS RE fae Sa PS org rere RAPT AE -
“eR, ss ROR Pen Taye See oes
—
37
eligible to vote because “paupers” are disqualified
from voting under state law, entitled to seek and
obtain a judicial determination that the “pauper”
disqualification is invalid under the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Philip Schwartz, 2054 14th Street, North, Arlington,
Virginia.
{fol. 78] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
[fol. 79] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript
(omitted in printing).
[fol. 80]
SupreME Court oF THE Unitep States
No. 835, October Term, 1964
AnniE E. Harper, et al., Appellants,
v.
Vireinta State Boarp or Exections, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.
Orver NotinG Propas_e J urispiction—March 8, 1965
The statement of jurisdiction in this case having been
submitted and considered by the Court, probable juris-
diction is noted.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.