When the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, guaranteeing that the right to vote could not be denied on account of sex, it was a monumental achievement. However, the legal landscape surrounding this new right was not immediately settled. The Supreme Court case of Leser v. Garnett, decided in 1922, played a crucial role in firmly establishing and clarifying the enforceability of the Nineteenth Amendment across the United States. This case addressed
several challenges to the amendment's validity, ultimately ensuring that women could exercise their newly recognized voting rights even in states that had previously denied them.
The Challenges to the Amendment's Validity
The plaintiffs in Leser v. Garnett mounted a multi-pronged attack on the Nineteenth Amendment, arguing that it was unconstitutional on several grounds. Their first argument contended that the amendment was invalid because it increased the electorate without the explicit consent of the state of Maryland. This argument suggested that such a fundamental change to the voting population required individual state approval beyond the ratification process itself. The plaintiffs believed that states should have a direct say in who constitutes their electorate, and that the amendment bypassed this supposed requirement.
Secondly, the plaintiffs argued that the ratification of the amendment was flawed because it relied on several states whose own constitutions denied women the right to vote. They asserted that the legislatures of these states, operating under their own restrictive state laws, therefore lacked the authority to ratify a federal amendment that contradicted their state constitutions. This argument raised questions about the interplay between state and federal constitutional powers, particularly when state laws were in direct opposition to a proposed federal amendment. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate the amendment by highlighting these perceived inconsistencies in the ratification process.
Procedural Objections and the Court's Unanimous Decision
The third argument presented by the plaintiffs focused on procedural irregularities in the ratification process. They claimed that the last two states to ratify the amendment, Tennessee and West Virginia, violated their own rules of procedure during their respective ratification processes. This challenge aimed to undermine the legitimacy of the final votes that pushed the amendment over the threshold for adoption. If these ratifications were deemed invalid due to procedural errors, the entire amendment's status could be jeopardized, potentially rolling back the progress made in securing women's suffrage.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected all three of these arguments, decisively upholding the Nineteenth Amendment. Regarding the first argument, the Court found it invalid because the wording of the Nineteenth Amendment was almost identical to that of the Fifteenth Amendment, which had been adopted using the same method. The Court reasoned that if one was valid, the other must also be valid, establishing a precedent for how constitutional amendments could expand the electorate. This comparison effectively neutralized the claim that Maryland's consent was uniquely required.
Affirming Federal Authority and Ratification Procedures
The Court also dismissed the second argument, which questioned the power of certain state legislatures to ratify the amendment based on their own state constitutions. The Supreme Court clarified that when state legislatures ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution, they are performing a federal function. Therefore, their authority in this context is derived from the federal process, not limited by their individual state constitutions. This ruling reinforced the supremacy of federal constitutional amendment procedures over conflicting state laws, ensuring that a state's internal regulations could not obstruct the national amendment process.
Finally, the Court addressed the procedural argument concerning Tennessee and West Virginia. While noting that two other states, Connecticut and Vermont, had subsequently ratified the amendment following their own proper procedures, which would have been sufficient to secure ratification even if Tennessee and West Virginia's actions were flawed, the Court went further. It pointed out that the Secretaries of State of both Tennessee and West Virginia had officially accepted the ratification by their respective legislatures, making those ratifications valid. This comprehensive rejection of all challenges by the Supreme Court in Leser v. Garnett solidified the Nineteenth Amendment, making it certain that women's right to vote could be exercised nationwide, even in states where state constitutions had previously prohibited it.
