Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Nixon v. Condon

Supreme Court of the United States · 1932 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionState ActionPrimary ElectionsFourteenth Amendmentstate actionequal protectionracial discrimination

Facts

After Nixon v. Herndon invalidated a Texas statute directly excluding Black voters from Democratic primaries, Texas enacted a new statute giving each political party, through its State Executive Committee, power to prescribe the qualifications of its members and determine who could vote or otherwise participate in the party. Acting under that statute, the Democratic State Executive Committee resolved that only white Democrats could participate in the 1928 primary. Petitioner, a Black citizen otherwise qualified to vote, appeared at the polls and was denied a ballot by election judges solely because of that resolution. He then brought this damages action against the judges.

Issue

Whether exclusion of petitioner from the Democratic primary by a State Executive Committee acting under authority conferred by Texas statute was state action subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether the committee's race-based exclusion was the act of a private association or the act of delegates exercising the State's power.

Rule

When the State confers on a political party committee independent statutory authority to determine who may participate in a primary, the committee acts as an organ or delegate of the State to that extent. Action taken under that state-conferred power must comply with the Fourteenth Amendment, and racial exclusion of otherwise qualified voters is unconstitutional.

🔒

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.

Oklahoma requires major parties to nominate statewide candidates through primaries. A state statute provides that each party's state executive committee may determine who is qualified to vote in that party's primary. Acting under that statute, the Prairie State Party's executive committee adopts a rule barring Latino voters from the party primary, and Elena Ruiz is denied a ballot in Tulsa solely for that reason.

If Elena sues the election officials for denying her a ballot, what is the strongest constitutional analysis?

Explanation. The majority's rule is that when a statute vests a party committee with independent authority to determine who may participate in a primary, the committee acts as an organ or delegate of the State to that extent. The key is that the power originates in the statute, not in the party's own inherent will. Because the committee used state-conferred authority to exclude voters on racial grounds, the exclusion is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.