Annie Harper Case Summary

Docket number forty-eight, is Virginia’s poll tax unconstitutional? Originally the poll tax was a prerequisite to voting. It would make the residents of Virginia pay a fee to vote in the electoral process. Each fee was about two dollars per person and per vote. That would be equivalent to about fifteen dollars in 2013 (Supreme 2). They would also discriminate towards poor whites and blacks who went in to vote. Even some women were not allowed either; which is against the 19th amendment which was ratified in 1920. In 1966, the residents of Virginia decided that their poll tax was unconstitutional and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause states that “no state shall deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Oyez, 1). The Virginia residents felt that the poll tax was violating that clause because they were not being treated equally at the polls, especially with the infringement of the tax. Annie Harper was the one who filed the suit against the Virginia Board in January of 1966. On March 24, 1966, the court came to a six to three decision for Harper (Oyez, 1). The court ruled that it was unconstitutional that fee payments or wealth,

This article was proposed to the legislative branch on August 27, 1962, but was not ratified or put into effect until 2 years later on January 23, 1964. The confirmation of this amendment marked the end of the mandatory poll taxes that citizens were obligated to pay in some Southern states in order to vote.

Was the stranger on the bridge An escapee worker in a Polish Factory or could she possibly have been from royalty in Russia's most powerful family no one knew for sure except her. although I believe that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia because many of her relatives and friends didn't believe it was her, she never talked about her experience of being held captive by the Bolsheviks, also When they took this to court she did not win because the judge claimed that she did not have enough evidence to be Anastasia. First Anna Anderson was not Anastasia because close relatives and friends didn't believe it was her, She hardly ever answered questions people ask her about her family being killed and held captive,And lost her case in court. evidence for relatives but didn't believe her is her daughter when she was younger claimed but she looks nothing like Anastasia or acted like her.

Why was Ann Hopkins passed over for a partnership? Give examples of events that contributed to her being passed over.

As I anticipated and previously advised you of my prediction on the issue, the Court is allowing the plaintiff to appear for her deposition after the court deadline and has recommended that the parties cooperate with each other. We are taking Lauren Cherny’s deposition tomorrow and Roger Castino is meeting me on March 2 for the inspection. We will incorporate Ms. Cherny’s testimony and Roger’s opinion into our evaluation of the potential damages and the likelihood of a verdict against us. Your insurer, USLI, will use our evaluation as one of several factors considered in determining what to offer in this case, but keep in mind that it prefers to settle cases rather than pay its attorneys to try cases. At this time, I do not know what the

Docket number forty-eight, is Virginia’s poll tax unconstitutional? Originally the poll tax was a prerequisite to voting. It would make the residents of Virginia, and some other southern states residents, pay a fee to vote in the electoral process. Each fee was about two dollars per person and per vote, at that time the minimum wage had just been raised to $1.40 per hour. So you can see, the two dollars to vote was very much out of reach giving way to only the wealthy to call the vote as they want; which was generally not what the state, as a whole, needed to serve and help all the residents of Virginia. Should Docket number forty-eight, filed by Annie Harper, had failed in 1966, we could still have the poll tax. Which in today’s time, it would be the equivalent of about fifteen dollars in 2013 (Supreme 2). The general public would still not be able to afford their constitutional right to vote. Imagine not being able to vote in the 2016 elections. It was such an important, controversial and life changing vote that more people voted than anyone could have predicted. However, with the poll tax, most would still not be able to afford it. It would be left to the upper class, the ones with the money. The middle class and below would have to go voiceless because of the tax and discrimination, and lack of affordability, leaving citizens without a voice as to how and who should run our country. This caused descent and

Poll tax was one of the obstacles of black people in the way to vote, where states passed the law that people had to pay money, before they could vote. This prevented blacks and many poor white people. White people were often free from the poll tax, through the “grandfather clause” which said that, if their grandfather voted in a previous election, they did not have to pay the tax. Surely, no black person’s grandfather had voted, so they had to pay the tax.

This article, “Swing State Rulings on Restrictive Voting Laws… (etc),” is an article that is set to highlight the inequality that is a result from laws put in place to not allow certain people the ability to vote. While many of these laws are packaged to look like something to prevent voter fraud, or other purposes, they are often times just a Jim Crowe law, in a different costume.

States already were searching for loopholes to keep segregation alive (Rakove 294). Because of the amendment only abolishing federal poll taxes, Virginia allowed the tax in their state elections. In 1966 Annie E. Harper, a female, Virginian resident, filed a suit alleging Virginia's poll tax as unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the district court dismissed her complaint. Because of this, she moved to the Supreme Court. Her case was argued January 25 and 26. Two months later, on March 24, in a six to three vote, Harper’s case won (“Harper v. Virginia”). Justice Earl Warren declared that the poll taxes in state elections violated the fourteenth amendment. Finally, because of this case, the twenty-fourth amendment would be recognized throughout all of the states. It would symbolize the nation’s changing attitude towards different races and financial classes

In Susan B. Anthony’s speech “Is it a Crime for a Citizen of the United States to Vote” she uses several historical figures to help support her argument about giving women the right to vote. She knew women were being discriminated against because of their gender and refused to take it. In her speech, she chose to support her argument about women’s right to vote. People in this time period viewed women as citizens, but only when it came to certain aspects. One of these aspects did not include the right to vote.

In the event when Susan B. Anthony was charged with illegal voting, she reacted promptly by delivering in depth convincing speeches in the county where her trial would be held regarding women and their inalienable right to vote, as equals to men, with direct extracted evidence as proof from the Preamble and the United States Constitution. In her examination of the Preamble, she zeros in on the phrase “We the people” and addresses its broader meaning, which clearly does not state exclusivity solely to men. Her reasoning here is that if the phrase “We the people” includes women, which legally it does, then the Preamble should apply to women. Here she expresses her frustration on the matter: “[I]t is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government - the ballot.” She goes

The United States has a troubled history of voter suppression. Prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many states used policies such as poll taxes and literacy tests to prevent African Americans from voting. Even after the voting barriers of the Jim Crow era were removed more than 50 years ago, some lawmakers continue to pursue policies that would undermine our nation’s progress.

This act stated that not only were poll taxes racially discriminatory, but also they kept economically deprived people from voting (Alcorn). This act was consistent with section two of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which gave Congress the power to pass legislation to prevent poll taxes. It stated specifically that, “ No voting qualifications or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote” (Voting Rights Act of 1965). This meant that no one could be denied the right to vote in an election because they failed a literacy test, or did not pay a tax, or did not satisfy the grandfather clause. This was a strong medicine for a strong ailment, that of systemic racism and discrimination in the Southern ballot

With the 2013 Supreme Court decision of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, the ability to decide what restrictions should be put on voters has returned to the states themselves (Shelby County v. Holder). State legislatures have since been extremely active in changing their voting processes. There are many conflicting opinions on the amount of control states should have over voting accessibility, as several states have enacted beneficial changes for voters, like online registration. Other states, however, have enacted stricter provisions, like voter ID laws, to their voting processes in order to counter voter fraud or help to shrink budgets. Opponents of these laws site their effects as limiting the right to vote, especially among low-income and

Recently state and federal legislators have been discussing voter identification laws, also known as voter ID laws. This issue is controversial because it can lead states to deny voters a vote without an approved ID. On one hand, some supporters of ID laws argue that these laws are preventing criminals from committing fraud. From this perspective, the laws are protecting the value of a vote and what it means to actually participate in an election vote. On the other hand, however, people argue that by placing the restriction on voting it is impeding the people constitutional rights much like a poll tax. Opponents also claim that by enforcing an ID law it is creating a poll tax similar to the ones created to prevent the African American people from voting. A poll tax is a specific amount a person is charged before being able to place a vote; the comparison between a poll tax and a driver’s license fee is like comparing apples and oranges, when getting a driver’s license a person is using their license as their main form of ID. Poll taxes were outlaw in the 1960s by the 24th amendment.