Terry v. Adams

Petitioner
Terry
Respondent
Adams
Petitioner's Claim
That excluding black voters from the Jaybird Democratic Association's primaryelections violated their right to vote based on race and color.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
J. Edwin Smith
Chief Lawyer for the Respondent
Edgar E. Townes, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Forman Reed,Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
Sherman Minton
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
4 May 1953
Decision
Reversed a decision by a court of appeals and held that the combined electionprocedures of the association and the Democratic Party deprived black citizens of the right to vote, contrary to the Fifteenth Amendment.
Significance
Terry v. Adams, with its invalidation of the whites-only primary election procedure in Fort Bend County, Texas, marked the end of the southern white primary, an institution that kept blacks from voting during the first halfof the twentieth century.
During the first half of the twentieth century, the Democratic party completely dominated southern politics. Because of that domination, the Democratic primary was the only meaningful election. If a citizen could not vote in the primary, he or she was virtually excluded from the electoral process. In 1889,the Jaybird Democratic Association of Fort Bend County, Texas was founded topromote "good government." Since its beginning in the post-Reconstruction period, its membership had been limited to white people, who automatically became members if their names appeared on the official list of county voters. Eachelection year, the association held the Jaybird primary in May, which selected by ballot the candidates that the association would endorse for public office in the county. For over 60 years, the association's county-wide candidates ran unopposed, dominated the Democratic primaries, and were elected to office.
On 16 May 1950, the petitioners instituted a class action suit on behalf of the black citizens of Fort Bend County, stating that they had been denied theright to participate in the primaries of the association solely based on their race and color. The association responded that they were not a political party, but a private voluntary group, and the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits the government at both the federal and state level from denying a personthe right to vote on the basis of race, did not apply to them. Adams, president of the Jaybird Association, testified that the purpose of the associationwas to have the white population vote at a time when the black population could not. The district court ruled that the association was a political party and that its discriminatory exclusion of blacks from the primary was invalid.It also ruled that blacks were legally entitled to vote in the Jaybird primary. The court of appeals reversed this decision, stating that because the association's primaries were not controlled by the state, the Fifteenth Amendmentdid not apply.
The Jaybird Primary
Justice Black wrote, "It is apparent that Jaybird activities follow a plan purposefully designed to exclude Negroes from voting and at the same time to escape the Fifteenth Amendment's command . . . " Black noted that the FifteenthAmendment bans racial discrimination by both state and nation and establishes a national policy regarding the election of national, state, or local officials. Black stated that because the Jaybird primary excluded African Americans, it was precisely the kind of election the Fifteenth Amendment sought to prevent. Black called the state's permitting this duplicate primary "a flagrantabuse" and added that the county-operated primary, which simply ratified theJaybird primary, "merely compounds the offense." "The only election that hascounted in the Texas county for more than 50 years has been that held by theJaybirds . . . The effect . . . is to . . . strip Negroes of every vestige of influence in selecting the officials who control the local county matters that intimately touch the daily lives of citizens." The Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court's holding thatthe Jaybird election machinery deprived black citizens of their right to voteon account of their race and color.
Justice Frankfurter also wrote an opinion for Terry v. Adams. He feltthat the Jaybird Association was not a political party, but that "if the electoral officials, clothed with State power in the county, share in that subversion, they cannot divest themselves of State authority and help as participants in the scheme." The county electoral officials participated in and condoned a continued effort to exclude black citizens from voting. The action of theassociation may not be forbidden by the Fifteenth Amendment, but its role inthe scheme brings it within reach of the law. Frankfurter noted that a federal court cannot require that the petitioners be allowed to vote in the Jaybird primary. "But a court of equity can free the lawful political agency from the combination that subverts its capacity to function."
Justice Clark agreed with the district court judge that the association was apolitical party, whose activities fall within the Fifteenth Amendment's ban.He felt that the Jaybird Democratic Association operated as part and parcelof the Democratic Party. Clark summed up his opinion by noting that whateverthe Jaybird Association is considered, either a separate political organization or part of the local Democratic party, it is the decisive power in the county's electoral process. The Fifteenth Amendment is applicable to state powerin all forms, and since the Jaybird organization chose the county's electedofficials, the association took on the attributes of government which draw the Constitution's safeguards into play.
A Pressure Group
Justice Minton, in his dissent, noted, "I am not concerned in the least as towhat happens to the Jaybirds or their unworthy scheme. I am concerned aboutwhat this Court says is state action within the meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Minton felt that the Supreme Court only had the power to right a wrong under that amendment if the wrong was done by the state. Minton believed that the Jaybird Democratic Association was not part of theDemocratic party and made no attempt to use the state to carry on its primary election. He felt that the Jaybirds conducted a straw vote, as individuals,to see who should receive the association's endorsement for county offices and that the association was nothing more than a pressure group. Minton notedthat the majority in this case concluded that the association's activities constituted state action. He felt that this conclusion was based on a dislike of the goals of the Jaybird Association. Although Minton also disliked their goals, he still did not feel that their activities constituted state action and thus should not be covered by the Fifteenth Amendment.
Impact
Terry v. Adams was the last of the "white primary cases." White primary laws were developed in the South to exclude black voters from elections. ATexas law limiting primaries to white voters was invalidated in 1927. Texas also passed a law stating that the executive committees of political parties could determine who voted in primaries. The Court invalidated this too. In 1953, when the Court decided that the Jaybird Democratic Association performed apublic function and that it violated the Fifteenth Amendment, it ended the practice of white primaries.
Terry v. Adams set a precedent for the Congress to prohibit private racial discrimination under the Fifteenth Amendment. This came into play in later federal legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case alsoserves as an example of the "public function" strand of state action doctrine.
Related Cases

• United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
  
• Guinn and Beal v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915).
  
• Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).
  
• Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).