◆ SpookStack

other civil retie= in anv cits statute. "Bnd third, an express provisi administrative and : . first exhausted before esc? courts." [Hearings pelteore the Committee on the tvtic: Sess., pe 570 (1957)3 ae) 17. Section 197l(a) derived irom the _fined voting rights as follows: “({a). All citizens of the Ui wise qualified by lew tc the people in any Stete, city, parish, township. or other territorial eu allowed to vote 2: ali tinction of race, ccler, or servitude; any consvitcin regulation of any Stat? oz TF a nev, custom, rritory, or by or under covered by the en that all State judicial. wenedies need not be to the Federal comnmittee No, 65th Cong. 5 of ist Civil Sights Act of 1870, at any election by ory, Gistrict, county, school district, municipality, “en, sholl be entitled and ctions, without dis- viows condition of usage, or its authority, to the concr>rinetwithstanding”. 13. See Section III, B,(1).{b) cl orlnion. 19. Sec: Key, Southern Politics 3553/1949); Civil Rights Commission E2port 133-38(1961). z2. In a note, Beatty, Private trons + ¢ Coercion and the Civil Rights Act. of 1957, Fl Yale BL. Jour. 3235, 54:/1962),. the author points outs: “The Circuit Court's censtrvesion of the 1957 act to apply to economic coercion in general and to economic coercion involving contract ent. sroperty rights in particular seems correc. Tr reguesting legislation to protect voting rigni:. TF i7icent Disenhower noted: "It is disturbing thet locelities allegations persist that Negro cit: their right to vote anc to unwarranted econezic - a sponsor of the bill, was Girected at deninis tive Celler, a House svr milk dealer, the cocci ¢ : and the candlestick maker. . persons who try to vote, ths he proposed law." 21. The Atcomey General brought dation, threat, and coercion” in Atkinson, et als, Civ.Ac. 4121. 6 Menadeison, Discrimination (Bror.” v. Silis, W.D.S8.C. 4942, 62 7. fuct. 221 rie being deprived of Being subjected res.' Senator Douglas, & the legislation rients 'by economic And Representa- ed that if 'the cher, the baker @. . .to boycott! ement would violate ‘9, Alar suit to enjoin County. 7. o%. eR. 200(1962). Pd i “intimi- United States v. Sde Ané& see United State =]