Petitioners
Albert Siebold, Walter Tucker, Martin C. Burns, Lewis Coleman, Henry Bowers
Respondent
State of Maryland
Petitioners' Claim
The petitioners were all election judges from Baltimore who had been convicted in federal court and subsequently sentenced to prison for stuffing ballot boxes and related incidents of election fraud in a congressional election in Maryland. They sought a writ of habeas corpus "to be relieved from imprisonment" on the grounds that Congress had no power to punish state officialsfor violating the laws of their own state.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Bradley T. Johnson
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Charles Devens, U.S. Attorney General
Justices for the Court
Joseph P. Bradley (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan I, Ward Hunt,Samuel Freeman Miller, William Strong, Noah Haynes Swayne, Morrison Remick Waite
Justices Dissenting
Nathan Clifford, Stephen Johnson Field
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
8 March 1880
Decision
Congress has the right to regulate federal elections, even if state laws alsoregulated the same elections, so the prison sentence stood and the writ of habeas corpus was denied.
Significance
Ex parte Siebold was one of the few cases during the Reconstruction period where the Supreme Court upheld federal civil rights legislation. The case also established the federal government's right to regulate elections and to punish state officials--another step in the ongoing process of defining states' rights versus federal power.
The time after the Civil War was a period of enormous transition in race relations and in the power structure of the Southern states. The so-called era ofReconstruction saw a great deal of federal civil rights legislation aimed atovercoming the effects of slavery. Both federal and state legislation was also directed at establishing voting rights for African Americans. Consequently, for the first time in U.S. history, a considerable number of African Americans were elected to local positions, state legislatures, and to Congress.
This new political strength of African Americans called forth resistance fromthe white people who had been in power before the Civil War. After Reconstruction officially ended with the withdrawal of federal troops from the South in 1873, white resistance to black political power became more blatant. In some areas, opposition took an open, violent form, as in terrorist acts by the Ku Klux Klan and other white-power groups. Elsewhere, those who opposed blackcivil rights manipulated the electoral process to guarantee either that blackcitizens would not vote or that their votes would have no impact.
Stuffing the Ballot Box
The story begins with five election judges: Albert Siebold, Walter Tucker, Martin C. Burns, Lewis Coleman, and Henry Bowers. Each was responsible for overseeing the voting at one of the precincts in the city of Baltimore on 5 November 1878, for the election to choose the members of the Forty-sixth Congress.
On election day, each of the five judges was engaged in some form of electionfraud. Henry Bowers was convicted of hindering an election supervisor from inspecting the ballot box at his precinct. Walter Tucker, along with a man named Justus J. Gude (who was not involved in the later Supreme Court case), wasconvicted of preventing Deputy Marshall James N. Schofield from supervisingthe election at his precinct, as well as " . . . fraudulently and clandestinely putting and placing in the ballot-box of the said precinct twenty (and more) ballots . . . with intent to thereby affect said election." As the Court decision emphasized, "This charge . . . is for the offence commonly known as `stuffing the ballot-box.'"
Martin C. Burns was convicted of:
Who is in Charge?
The convicted judges were duly sentenced to prison--but they protested. In their petition for habeas corpus (a claim that they had been or were about to be wrongfully imprisoned), they made three arguments:
(1) When Congress regulates elections, that power is an exclusive power.
(2) Being exclusive, Congress's regulatory power cannot be interfered with bythe states. Therefore, it "must be so exercised as not to interfere with orcome in collision with regulations presented . . . by the States, unless it provides for the complete control over [elections]."
(3) When Congress runs an election, its regulations "must take the place of all state regulations . . . [and the election] must be entirely and completelycontrolled and provided for by Congress.
Clearly, behind the legal language of Ex parte Siebold was a politicalfight. The federal government was involved in supervising congressional elections because of the civil rights legislation that Congress had passed in 1870 and 1871. At that point, federal troops were still stationed throughout theSouth, to prevent the resumption of power by former Confederate officials and to guarantee the civil rights of African Americans. The legislation callingfor deputy marshals and federal officials was another layer of political control--a layer deeply resented by many white people in the South.
By the time of Siebold, 1880, federal troops had been out of the Southfor some seven years. But the civil rights legislation was still in place--and many white Southerners, including many residents of Maryland, deeply resented the idea of sharing political power with their black neighbors. Thus, like Siebold and his colleagues, they resorted to various forms of election fraud. And, like the men in Ex parte Siebold, they resisted federal control in whatever ways they could.
The Court Fights Back
In the Court's majority opinion in Siebold, written by Justice Bradley, the Court stressed that federal and state power could certainly overlap--aslong as it was understood that federal power always took precedence. The Court vehemently argued that the federal government could use any means it chose, including physical force, to make sure its laws were obeyed.
The Court and Civil Rights
For much of the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction period, the Supreme Court was fairly conservative. In Ex parte Siebold, however, it took anunusually strong stand in support of the federal government's right and responsibility to protect the voting rights of all Americans.
Related Cases
Albert Siebold, Walter Tucker, Martin C. Burns, Lewis Coleman, Henry Bowers
Respondent
State of Maryland
Petitioners' Claim
The petitioners were all election judges from Baltimore who had been convicted in federal court and subsequently sentenced to prison for stuffing ballot boxes and related incidents of election fraud in a congressional election in Maryland. They sought a writ of habeas corpus "to be relieved from imprisonment" on the grounds that Congress had no power to punish state officialsfor violating the laws of their own state.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Bradley T. Johnson
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Charles Devens, U.S. Attorney General
Justices for the Court
Joseph P. Bradley (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan I, Ward Hunt,Samuel Freeman Miller, William Strong, Noah Haynes Swayne, Morrison Remick Waite
Justices Dissenting
Nathan Clifford, Stephen Johnson Field
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
8 March 1880
Decision
Congress has the right to regulate federal elections, even if state laws alsoregulated the same elections, so the prison sentence stood and the writ of habeas corpus was denied.
Significance
Ex parte Siebold was one of the few cases during the Reconstruction period where the Supreme Court upheld federal civil rights legislation. The case also established the federal government's right to regulate elections and to punish state officials--another step in the ongoing process of defining states' rights versus federal power.
The time after the Civil War was a period of enormous transition in race relations and in the power structure of the Southern states. The so-called era ofReconstruction saw a great deal of federal civil rights legislation aimed atovercoming the effects of slavery. Both federal and state legislation was also directed at establishing voting rights for African Americans. Consequently, for the first time in U.S. history, a considerable number of African Americans were elected to local positions, state legislatures, and to Congress.
This new political strength of African Americans called forth resistance fromthe white people who had been in power before the Civil War. After Reconstruction officially ended with the withdrawal of federal troops from the South in 1873, white resistance to black political power became more blatant. In some areas, opposition took an open, violent form, as in terrorist acts by the Ku Klux Klan and other white-power groups. Elsewhere, those who opposed blackcivil rights manipulated the electoral process to guarantee either that blackcitizens would not vote or that their votes would have no impact.
Stuffing the Ballot Box
The story begins with five election judges: Albert Siebold, Walter Tucker, Martin C. Burns, Lewis Coleman, and Henry Bowers. Each was responsible for overseeing the voting at one of the precincts in the city of Baltimore on 5 November 1878, for the election to choose the members of the Forty-sixth Congress.
On election day, each of the five judges was engaged in some form of electionfraud. Henry Bowers was convicted of hindering an election supervisor from inspecting the ballot box at his precinct. Walter Tucker, along with a man named Justus J. Gude (who was not involved in the later Supreme Court case), wasconvicted of preventing Deputy Marshall James N. Schofield from supervisingthe election at his precinct, as well as " . . . fraudulently and clandestinely putting and placing in the ballot-box of the said precinct twenty (and more) ballots . . . with intent to thereby affect said election." As the Court decision emphasized, "This charge . . . is for the offence commonly known as `stuffing the ballot-box.'"
Martin C. Burns was convicted of:
refusing to allow the supervisor or elections to inspect the ballot-box, or even to enter the room where thepolls were held, and with violently resisting the deputy marshal who attempted to arrest him . . .Lewis Coleman was found guilty of the same charges as Burns, plus an additional charge of ballot-box stuffing. Sieboldwas convicted of the serious charge of stuffing the ballot-box.
Who is in Charge?
The convicted judges were duly sentenced to prison--but they protested. In their petition for habeas corpus (a claim that they had been or were about to be wrongfully imprisoned), they made three arguments:
(1) When Congress regulates elections, that power is an exclusive power.
(2) Being exclusive, Congress's regulatory power cannot be interfered with bythe states. Therefore, it "must be so exercised as not to interfere with orcome in collision with regulations presented . . . by the States, unless it provides for the complete control over [elections]."
(3) When Congress runs an election, its regulations "must take the place of all state regulations . . . [and the election] must be entirely and completelycontrolled and provided for by Congress.
Clearly, behind the legal language of Ex parte Siebold was a politicalfight. The federal government was involved in supervising congressional elections because of the civil rights legislation that Congress had passed in 1870 and 1871. At that point, federal troops were still stationed throughout theSouth, to prevent the resumption of power by former Confederate officials and to guarantee the civil rights of African Americans. The legislation callingfor deputy marshals and federal officials was another layer of political control--a layer deeply resented by many white people in the South.
By the time of Siebold, 1880, federal troops had been out of the Southfor some seven years. But the civil rights legislation was still in place--and many white Southerners, including many residents of Maryland, deeply resented the idea of sharing political power with their black neighbors. Thus, like Siebold and his colleagues, they resorted to various forms of election fraud. And, like the men in Ex parte Siebold, they resisted federal control in whatever ways they could.
The Court Fights Back
In the Court's majority opinion in Siebold, written by Justice Bradley, the Court stressed that federal and state power could certainly overlap--aslong as it was understood that federal power always took precedence. The Court vehemently argued that the federal government could use any means it chose, including physical force, to make sure its laws were obeyed.
Whydo we have marshals at all, if they cannot physically lay their hands on persons and things in the performance of their proper duties? What functions canthey perform, if they cannot use force? In executing the processes of the courts, must they call on the nearest constable for protection? Must they relyon him to see the requisite compulsion whilst they are soliciting and entreating the parties and bystanders to allow the law to take its course? . . . Ifwe indulge in such impracticable views as these . . . we shall drive the national government out of the United States, and relegate it to the District ofColumbia, or perhaps to some foreign soil. We shall bring it back to a condition of greater helplessness than that of the old confederation.
The Court and Civil Rights
For much of the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction period, the Supreme Court was fairly conservative. In Ex parte Siebold, however, it took anunusually strong stand in support of the federal government's right and responsibility to protect the voting rights of all Americans.
Related Cases
- Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).
- United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915).
Further Readings
- Bardolph, Richard, ed. The Civil Rights Record: Black Americans and the Law, 1849-1970, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1970.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
User Comments Add a comment…