The doctrine that the late amendments to the federal constitution do not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the right to vote in the states comes from the state, was distinctly affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Minor v. Happerset, 21 Wallace, 178; The United States v. Reese et al., 2 to, 214, and The United States v. Cruikshank et al., 2 Otto, 542. In the first named case, Chief Justice Waite, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "The fifteenth amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one. It prevents the states, or the United States, however, from giving preference, in this particular, to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. Before its adoption this could be done. It was as much within the power of a state to exclude citizens of the United States from voting on account of race, &c., as it was on account of age, property or education. Now it is not. If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted by law to vote, those United States. For by the constitution of the United States, representatives are chosen by the 'qualified electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." Senators are chosen by the legislature, and electors in such manner as the state legislature may direct. Notwithstanding, therefore, the constitution conferred upon congress the power of providing uniform naturalization laws, and notwithstanding, it must be admitted that an alien cannot become a full citizen of the United States, except by complying with these laws, it must also be admitted that the state may, by conferring upon them the right of suffrage, enable them to have an equal voice with any other citizen in the United States itself; and although, they may not be full citizens, they may well be said, in a general sense, to be citizens even of the United States. of another, having the same qualifications, must be." And in the Cruikshank case the Supreme Court said: "In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall, 178, we decided that the United States have no voters of their own creation in the States. In United States v. Reese et al., supra., 214, we held that the fifteenth amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which is, exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. From this it appears that the right of suffrage is not an attribute of national citizenship, but that exemption from discrimination in the exercise of that right on account of race, &c., is. The right to vote in the states comes from the states; but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States."1 But the states still retain the power of discriminating in the right to vote on account of any cause other than those specified in the constitutional amendments.2 This power is exercised in Rhode Island where 1. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer (Nevada) Rep., 118. 2. Ibid; Van Valkenbrug v. Brown, 43 Cal., 43; Anthony v. Halderman, 7 Kansas, 50; 2 Abbot U. S., 120. "Under the fifteenth amendment to the constitution, and the act of May 31, 1870, to enforce it, all persons declared citizens of the United States by the fourteenth amendment, are entitled to vote in the state where they reside at all elections by the people, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; but the several states, notwithstanding the amendments, have the power to deny the right of suffrage to any citizens of the United States, on account of age, sex, place of birth, vocation, want of property or intelligence, neglect of civic duties, crime, or other cause not specified in the amendment." discrimination is made on account of nativity, the constitution prescribing in its suffrage article, qualifications for foreign born residents different from those prescribed for natives.1 Whether the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," forbid the denial of suffrage to females, was directly decided in a case in New York, where a female, having claimed the elective franchise and voted, was indicted for voting illegally. The indictment was sustained.2 See also 16 Albany Law Journal, 272-7, in which a writer on the elective franchise, concludes: "That, with the exception of the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States, in both of which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, the question, who are voters in this country, and who are not, is wholly a matter of state authority and state discretion, subject to the following limitations: 1. That those who in each state are voters for members of the most numerous branch of its legislature are by the constitution entitled to be voters for representatives in congress. 2. That citizens of the United States shall not by any state be excluded from voting on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. 3. That no state shall adopt any constitution or exercise any power that is destructive of a republican form of government. Outside of these limitations, the whole power of determining who shall exercise the elective franchise in the states, whether in respect to state or national officers, is with the states themselves, and with each state with reference to its own citizens." 1. See Suffrage Clause of Rhode Island Constitution, post. 2. U. S. v. Susan B. Anthony, 11 Blatch., 200. The defendant possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the state constitution for voters except that she was a female. The constitution of the state, and the act under it, provides that none but males shall vote. She was indicted for voting without lawful right. It was contended on the trial that the provision of the state constitution confining the elective franchise to males was void, as a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United Indirectly congress may work a forfeiture of suffrage in those states which make United States citizenship a qualification, by enacting laws providing for the forfeiture of citizenship for certain offences. In such case the act operates through the state constitution in working disfranchisement.1 The suffrage is lost because States, which provides, that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States." Held, that such restriction was not void. The fourteenth amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States, and protects only such rights as are rights belonging to persons as citizens of the United States, and not rights belonging to persons as citizens of a state. The right or privilege of voting is one arising under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States. The defence, therefore, held not good. 1. Huber v. Reily, 53 Pennsylvania State Rep., 112. By the court: "In the exercise of its admitted powers, congress may undoubtedly deprive the individual of the right to enjoy a right that belongs to him as a citizen of a state, even the right of suffrage; but this is a different thing from taking away or impairing the right itself. Under the laws of the federal government a voter may be sent abroad in the military service of the country, and thus deprived of the privilege of exercising his right; or a voter may be imprisoned for crime against the United States; but it is a perversion of language to call this impairing his right of suffrage. Congress may provide laws for the naturalization of aliens, or it may refuse to provide such laws; its action or non-action may thus determine whether individuals shall or shall not become citizens of the United States. And I cannot doubt that, as a penalty for crime against the United States, congress may impose upon the criminal, forfeiture of his citizenship of the United States; disfranchisement of a citizen, as a punishment for crime, is no unusual punishment. Barker v. People, 20 Johnson, 457. If by the organic law of a state, citizens of the United States only are allowed to vote, the action or non-action of congress may thus, indirectly, affect the number of those entitled to the right of suffrage; yet, after all, the right is one which the possessor holds as a citizen of a state, secured to him by the state constitution, and to be held on the terms prescribed by that constitution alone. State v. Symonds, 57 Maine, 148. |