Speech #880234245

Templeton. 185 U.S. 487. 491.) In this case no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President. and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the State might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a Federal one. Specifically. with reference to the question of literacy tests and their possible contravention of the 15th amendment. the Supreme Court carefully examined this question in Guinn v. U.S.. 238 U.S. 347: Beyond doubt the amendment does not take away from the State governments in a general sense the power over suffrage which has belonged to those governments from the beginning and without the possession of which power the whole fabric upon which the division of State and National authority under the Constitution and the organization of both governments rest would be without support and both the authority of the Nation and the State would fall to the ground. In fact. the very command of the amendment recognizes the possession of the general power by the State. since the amendment seeks to regulate its exercise as to the particular subject with which it deals." But while this is true. it is true also that the amendment does not change. modify or deprive the States of their full power as to suffrage except of course as to the subject with which the amendment deals and to the extent that obedience to its command is necessary. Thus the authority over suffrage which the States possess and the limitation which the amendment imposes are coordinate and one may not destroy the other without bringing about the destruction of both. While in the true sense. therefore. the amendment gives no right to suffrage. it was long ago recognized that in operation its prohibition might measurably have that effect. that is to say. that as the command of the amendment was selfexecuting and reached without legislative action the conditions of discrimination against which it was aimed. the result might arise that as a consequence of the striking down of a discriminating clause a right of suffrage would be enjoyed by reason of the generic character of the provision which would remain after the discrimination was stricken out. No time need be spent on the question of the validity of the literacy test considered alone since we have seen its establishment was but the exercise by the State of a lawful power vested in it not subject to our supervision. and. indeed. its validity is admitted. There is no question. therefore. that the States may not only determine the qualifications of voters. but the States may also establish literacy tests as a method of determining the qualifications of voters. In 1959. the Supreme Court reaffirmed. in a unanimous opinion. the principle of the Guinn. caseLassiter v. Northampton County Board o1 Elections. 360 U.S. 98: We come to the question whether a State may consistently with the 14th and 17th amendments apply a literacy test to all voters irrespective of race or color. The Court in Guinn v. United States. supra. at 366. disposed of the question in a few words. "No time need be spent on the question of the validity of the literacy test considered alone since as we have seen its establishment was but the exercise by the State of a lawful power vested In it not subject to our supervision. and indeed. its validity is admitted." The States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised (Pope v. Williams. 193 U.S. 621. 633. Mason v.