University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1949 The onsC titutionality of National Anti-Poll Tax Bills Janice E. Christensen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Christensen, Janice E., "The onC stitutionality of National Anti-Poll Tax Bills" (1949). Minnesota Law Review. 1583. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1583 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW Journal of the State Bar Assoczatwn VOLUME 33 FEBRUARY, 1949 No. 3 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NATIONAL ANTI-POLL TAX BILLS JANICE E. CHRISTENSEN* V ITAL constitutional issues are posed by the anti-poll tax bills debated in Congress during the past decade. These bills seek to abolish the requirement now prevailing in seven southern states that a poll taxi of one to two dollars be paid before voting in national elections.2 In providing for the abolition of the poll tax requirement for voting, the bills raise the broad constitutional issue of the relative powers of the nation and states in national elections under our federal system. The issue is raised primarily because the bills propose to broaden national control of voting qualifications and requirements hitherto largely within the province of the states. That unprecedented national control is envisaged is indicated by *Instructor in Government, University of Texas. Author of The Con- stitutionality of Proposed National Legislation to Abolish the Poll Tax as a Requirement for Voting in National Elections. (Thesis on file in University of Minnesota Library, 1946.) 1. The poll tax (also "capitation" or "head" tax) is a uniform, direct, and personal tax levied upon the person, head, or poll as the object of taxa- tion. See Shoup, Poll Tax, 12 Encyc. Soc. Sci. 227 (1933), Dewey, The Poll Tax 2 Cyc. American Government 732 (1914) , Lutz, Public Finance 454 (2d ed. 1930) ; Cooley, The Law of Taxation 18 (1879). 2. (a) Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia require payment of a poll tax of one to two dollars be- fore voting in national and other elections with the exception of primaries in South Carolina. In three states the tax is cumulative. In Alabama a tax of $36.00 may be required of an intending voter inasmuch as the tax is cumula- tive for the entire period of liability; in Mississippi, a tax of $6.00 may be required at the end of two years; and in Virginia, one of $5.01 may be re- qtured at the end of three years. Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, Bulletin No. 15, The Poll Tax as a Prerequisite to Voting, Outline of Legal Provs.ons 1-16 (1942). (b) The constitutional and statutory provisions making payment of the poll tax a requirement for voting are cited in Kallenbach, Constitutional Aspects of Federal Anti-Poll Tax Legislation, 45 Mich. L. Rev. 717 (1947). MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33.217 the fact that the bills, if passed, would for the first tiime" abolish by Congressional action alone a voting requirement established as a voting qualification in state constitutions. In the past, amend- ment of the national Constitution rather than statutory action by Congress has been employed when the national government has sought to remove qualifications prescribed in state constitutions. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY The first anti-poll tax bill was introduced on August 5, 1939, during the first session of the seventy-sixth Congress by Repre- sentative Lee S. Geyer, Democrat, of California, at the request of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare.4 Although hear- ings were held on the bill before a special subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, the bill died in committeeY Geyer's anti-poll tax bill, H.R. 7534, "A Bill to Amend an Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities," was a proposed amendment to the First Hatch Act.0 As this might suggest, the bill was based entirely on the assumption that the poll tax require- ment resulted in fraudulent political practices at the polls. In the bill it was stated that "frequently such taxes are paid for the voters by other persons as an inducement for voting for certain candi- dates." "Existing legislation prohibiting the making of expendi- tures to induce persons to vote for certain candidates has failed to prevent this practice." Congress must, therefore, abolish the poll tax requirement "in order to insure the honesty" of elections for national officers, i.e., President, Vice President, or electors for President or Vice President, Senator, or member of the House of Representatives of the United States. Inasmuch as Congressional 3. Congress has passed legislation suspending the poll tax requircment for voting and the requirement of presence at the polls for members of the armed forces "at time of war." See Act of Sept. 16, 1942, 56 Stat. 753 (1942), as amended, 58 Stat. 136 (1944), 50 U. S. C. 302 (1946) But this action would not appear to be identical with abolishing outright a requirement prescribed as a voting qualification in state constitutions as is the intention of the anti-poll tax bills. 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 11229 (1939). The Southern Conference of Human Welfare describes itself as "an organization of representative southerners interested in improving the social, educational, agricultural, and industrial conditions in the South." American Council on Public Affairs and Southern Conference for Human Welfare, The Poll Tax 2 (1940). The Southern Conference for Human Welfare was responsible for be- ginning in 1938 agitation for national action to eliminate the poll tax require- ment in the poll tax states. Foreman, Georgia Kills the Poll Tax, 112 New Republic 291 (February 26, 1945) 5. The proceedings of the Hearings were not published. 6. H.R. 7534, 76th Cong.. 1st Sess. (1939) "A Bill to Amend an Act to prevent pernicious political activities." 1949] "9]4NTI-POLL TAX BILLS power over primaries had been denied by court interpretationj the bills did not attempt to abolish the poll tax requirement in primaries. Geyer introduced the same bill in the seventy-seventh Congress in 1941.' The bill, now H.R. 1024, was passed by the House of Representatives on October 12, 1942, by a vote of 252-84.1 In the Senate, this bill was completely amended by the substitution of S. 1280, the anti-poll tax bill introduced by Senator Claude Pepper, Democrat, of Florida, in the same seventy-seventh Congress.'0 Pepper's bill was recommended to pass by the Senate Judiciary Committee,1 but filibustering tactics of the southern Senators and failure to invoke cloture prevented the bill from coming to a vote 2 on the floor of the Senate.1 The Pepper bill 3 differed in important respects from the Geyer bills. It was not an amendment to the Hatch Act, although it did state that fraudulent practices resulted from the poll tax require- ment for voting. But the Pepper bill was based principally on the contention that the poll tax requirement "is not and shall not be deemed a qualification of voters or electors within the meaning of section 2 of article I of the Constitution." The poll tax require- ment, read the preamble to the bill, bears "no reasonable relation to the intelligence, ability, character, wealth, community-conscious- ness or other qualification of voters." Rather, the requirement is an interference,-with the manner of holding elections, and a tax 7. Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232 (1921), overruled it United -States v. Clas'sic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). 8. 87 Cong.-Rtc. 18 (1941). 9. 8g Cong. Rec" 8174 (1942). 10. 87 Cong. Rec. 2698 (1941). 11. 88 Cong. Rec. 8656 (1942). 12. Id. at 9065-72. 13. The preamble of the Pepper bill read m part as follows. "Whereas the [poll'tax] re4uirements ... have deprived many citizens of the right and privilege of voting as guaranteed to them under the Constitution, and have been detrimental to the integrity of the ballot in that frequently such taxes have been paid for the voters by other persons as an inducement for voting for certain candidates, and Whereas these requirements have no relation to the intelligence, ability, character, wealth, community-consciousness or other qualifications of -voters; and Whereas such requirements do deprive many citizens of the right and privilege of voting for national officers, and cause, induce, and abet practices and methods in respect to the holding of primaries and elections detrimental to the proper selection of persons for national offices.. ." Section 1 of the bill provided that the poll tax requirement is not a qualification but an interference with the manner of holding elections and a tax on the right to vote. Sections 2, 3, and 4 provided that it %as unlawful for any State or other government subdivision or any person to require poll 'tax payment before voting in national elections or primaries preceding those elections. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Judiciary on S. 1280, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. pt. 1, 1-2. (1942). MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW IVol. 33.217 upon the right to vote. Also, it denies to many citizens the right and privilege of voting in national elections, including primaries, a right and privilege guaranteed to them by the Constitution. In 1943 in the seventy-eighth Congress 14 and in 1945 in the seventy-ninth Congress15 the most important anti-poll tax bill, H.R. 7, was introduced by Representative Vito Marcantonio, American Labor Party, of New York.