◆ SpookStack

G S 1“ bedtea by several tional | [ponte tecuea me Sahar hn eet Tidates for federal office are part yf — “s " iiodernl ciections, - ~ : : uth, sued two Texes Harris i may ne Be en 9 rh ty election judges, eharging ‘ Reed's decision they refed to accept his ballot as|nv, Tastee »é , ‘h in a a qualified voter in the 1940 Demi-] Since for the peminailan of eam. ocratie primaries for nomin ofl aidates without discrimination by federal, state and local the state, like the right te vete in « He asked for damages and ® dec~|spnerg! glection, la a right secured latory judgment affirming the right!,,-ine Comstitntion, ; of Negroes to vote in the “By the terms of the 15th Amend? Byith’s sutt had been previously| ment, that right may not be abridged rejected by a Texas Federal Distriet|by any state... Under eur Constiin- Court, which ciaimed that thé/tion the great privilege of choosing Texas primaries were “political! his rulers may not be denied a man party affairs". and not subject to|by the state because of his color.” federal control, Meanwhile, a Fed-! tone dissenter in the 8 to 1 deci- eral Appeals Court at New Oriean§ con. which is historic in propor- upheld the Texas- loca] offic » Wes Justice Roberig, 4 thus setting precedent in Louisiana |poover appointee, who bitterly as- barring Negroes from participating |saiied the ruling. duatice Roberta’ in primaries in that state al80./onger at the miling was Dot at the Yesterday's Supreme Court e=/iecauty of the ruling itself, but be- ile ion upset the Loutsiana decision | poise, to use his words the elgnt d legally bans discrimination justices had shown “intolerancef ainst Negroes in primaries in sll/.coinst previous court judges whb er southern states where thi8)iig ruled in favor of the disc: . feudal practice is atill in effect. tory practice. } REVERSES ‘35 STAND - Preceding the Supreme Court “ i gz. which must fave struck The Texas “white P case” terror into the hearts of the Dies- had been argued twice before th@liisberg.gumners gang who have U. 3. Supreme Court. Earlier, in} cintained neir Congressional 1935, the Supreme Court had ruled /.o+. py only a fraction of the po- thet s denial of the right of Ne- |i ential vote in the ‘Texas counties, grces to vote in the Texas prie Negro organizations in Texas hid maries was “se mere refusal” by the/. 3. preparing for e favorable deci- Democratic Party to admit Negroeai| 47 by conducting @ broad cam. into Democr#tic Party membershipy| naign among Negroes to pay thelr and, as a “private organization,” ..tax in order to be eligible to had the right to make rules as tO.4. thousands of Negroes voters! who could vote in its primaries. scraped up the necessary tax and However, in another ruling in 1041J/nave paid, it was reported, A sur- Justice Reed pointed out in yesterd yey conducted last month showed day's decision, the high court hadbinat out of the 3,600,000 persons in ruled that primaries involving cad-|Texas of voting age, about 1,700, : _—_—_— | had thus become eligible. Last Jarj- (Continued on Page 2) Negro churches, clubs, chanj- - ooo. bers of commerce and insuranr} “4 * cumpaniés mapped out a campalgh Won t Like it to turn out © big Negro vote in 1944. . Meanwhile, Texas has been the ‘scene of a huge influx of war labor, and a shift of voting poptlations ferem the rural sections, where the “ [Dies type of Congressmen held away,' ‘to the urban manufacturing center‘. ‘This increasing politically conscious | labor vote, plus the right of the Ne- groes to participate in the primaries. -lmnay result in putting the skids un- ‘der one of the worst political gangs lin the entire south, . Another important by-product of june Supreme Court decision may Ye iin this fact: whoever wins in tfc “Texas Désnecratfc primaries is