Harman v. Forssenius

Supreme Court of the United States · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsTwenty-fourth AmendmentAbstentionVoting Rightspoll taxcertificate of residenceTwenty-fourth Amendmentfederal elections

Facts

Before the Twenty-fourth Amendment, Virginia required payment of a poll tax, along with citizenship, age, and residence requirements, for voting in both state and federal elections. After the Amendment, Virginia left the poll tax requirement in place for state elections but, for federal elections, allowed a voter either to pay the usual poll taxes or to file a witnessed or notarized certificate of residence during a specified period ending six months before the election. The certificate required the voter to attest to present address, continued Virginia residence since registration, and present intent not to leave the city or county before the next general election. Appellees challenged that alternative requirement as unconstitutional.

Issue

Whether Virginia may, consistent with the Twenty-fourth Amendment, require a voter in federal elections either to pay the customary poll tax or to file a witnessed or notarized certificate of residence within a fixed period ending six months before the election. Also, whether the district court should have abstained in favor of state-court resolution of state-law issues.

Rule

The Twenty-fourth Amendment bars not only outright denial of the federal franchise for failure to pay a poll tax, but also any abridgment of that right by imposing a material requirement solely on those who decline to pay the tax. If a state statute is clear and unambiguous and not fairly subject to a construction that would avoid or substantially modify the federal constitutional issue, a federal court should not abstain from deciding the case.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North Carolina requires voters in congressional elections either to pay a $2 poll tax or, if they choose not to pay, to appear before a county clerk in Raleigh or another county seat and sign a residence affidavit during the month of April before the November election. Voters who pay the tax receive a bill by mail and need do nothing else.

A registered voter who refused to pay the poll tax challenges the affidavit option. How should a federal court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a State may not deny or abridge the federal franchise by reason of failure to pay a poll tax, and that ban reaches indirect burdens as well as outright exclusion. A material requirement imposed only on voters who decline to pay the poll tax is invalid even if framed as an alternative method of qualifying. Requiring in-person appearance and an affidavit before the election is a real obstacle imposed solely on those asserting the constitutional immunity, so it abridges the right to vote in federal elections. (Derived from Harman v. Forssenius (n.d.).)