opinion: TERRY et al. v. ADAMS et al.
  No. 52.
  Argued January 16, 1953.
  Decided May 4, 1953.
  For opinion of MR. Justice Black, joined by Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Burton, see post, p. 462.
  For opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see post, p. 470.
  For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Clark, joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Jackson, see post, p. 477.
  For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Minton, see post, p. 484.
  J. Edwin Smith and James M. Nabrit argued the cause for petitioners. With Mr. Smith on the brief was Ira J. Allen.
  Edgar E. Townes, Jr. and Clarence I. McFarlane argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief was E. E. Townes.
  Mr. Justice Black
  announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Burton join.
  In Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, we held that rules of the Democratic Party of Texas excluding Negroes from voting in the party’s primaries violated the Fifteenth Amendment. While no state law directed such exclusion, our decision pointed out that many party activities were subject to considerable statutory control. This case raises questions concerning the constitutional power of a Texas county political organization called the Jaybird Democratic Association or Jaybird Party to exclude Negroes from its primaries on racial grounds. The Jaybirds deny that their racial exclusions violate the Fifteenth Amendment. They contend that the Amendment applies only to elections or primaries held under state regulation, that their association is not regulated by the state at all, and that it is not a political party but a self-governing voluntary club. The District Court held the Jaybird racial discriminations invalid and entered judgment accordingly. 90 F. Supp. 595. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was no constitutional or congressional bar to the admitted discriminatory exclusion of Negroes because Jaybird’s primaries were not to any extent state controlled. 193 F. 2d 600. We granted certiorari. 344 U. S. 883.
  There was evidence that:
  The Jaybird Association or Party was organized in 1889. Its membership was then and always has been limited to white people; they are automatically members if their names appear on the official list of county voters. It has been run like other political parties with an executive committee named from the county’s voting precincts. Expenses of the party are paid by the assessment of candidates for office in its primaries. Candidates for county offices submit their names to the Jaybird Committee in accordance with the normal practice followed by regular political parties all over the country. Advertisements and posters proclaim that these candidates are running subject to the action of the Jaybird primary. While there is no legal compulsion on successful Jaybird candidates to enter Democratic primaries, they have nearly always done so and with few exceptions since 1889 have run and won without opposition in the Democratic primaries and the general elections that followed. Thus the party has been the dominant political group in the county since organization, having endorsed every county-wide official elected since 1889.
  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 that the right of citizens to vote shall neither be denied nor abridged on account of race. These were the admitted party purposes according to the following testimony of the Jaybird’s president:
  Q. . . . Now Mr. Adams, will you tell me specifically what is the specific purpose of holding these elections and carrying on this organization like you do?
  A. Good government.
  Q. Now I will ask you to state whether or not it is the opinion and policy of the Association that to carry on good government they must exclude negro citizens?
  A. Well, when we started it was and it is still that way, I think.
  Q. And then one of the purposes of your organization is for the specific purpose of excluding negroes from voting, isn’t it?
  A. Yes.
  Q. And that is your policy?
  A. Yes.
  Q. I will ask you, that is the reason you hold your election in May rather than in June or July, isn’t it?
  A. Yes.
  Q. Because if you held it in July you would have to abide by the statutes and the law by letting them vote?
  A. They do vote in July.
  Q. And if you held yours at that time they would have to vote too, wouldn’t they?
  A. Why sure.
  Q. And you hold it in May so they won’t have to?
  A. Well, they don’t vote in ours but they can vote on anybody in the July election they want to.
  Q. But you are not answering my question. My question is that you hold yours in May so you won’t have to let them vote, don’t you?
  A. Yes.
  Q. And that is your purpose?
  A. Yes.
  Q. And your intention?
  A. Yes.
  Q. And to have a vote of the white population at a time when the negroes can’t vote, isn’t that right?
  A. That’s right.
  Q. That is the whole policy of your Association?
  A. Yes.
  Q. And that is its purpose?
  A. Yes.
  The District Court found that the Jaybird Association was a political organization or party; that the majority of white voters generally abide by the results of its primaries and support in the Democratic primaries the persons endorsed by the Jaybird primaries; and that the chief object of the Association has always been to deny Negroes any voice or part in the election of Fort Bend County officials.
  The facts and findings bring this case squarely within the reasoning and holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in its two recent decisions about excluding Negroes from Democratic primaries in South Carolina. Rice v. Elmore, 165 F. 2d 387, and Baskin v. Brown, 174 F. 2d 391. South Carolina had repealed every trace of statutory or constitutional control of the Democratic primaries. It did this in the hope that thereafter the Democratic Party or Democratic “Clubs” of South Carolina would be free to continue discriminatory practices against Negroes as voters. The contention there was that the Democratic “Clubs” were mere private groups; the contention here is that the Jaybird Association is a mere private group. The Court of Appeals in invalidating the South Carolina practices answered these formalistic arguments by holding that no election machinery could be sustained if its purpose or effect was to deny Negroes on account of their race an effective voice in the governmental affairs of their country, state, or community. In doing so the Court relied on the principle announced in Smith v. Allwright, supra, at 664, that the constitutional right to be free from racial discrimination in voting “. . . is not to be nullified by a State through casting its electoral process in a form which permits a private organization to practice racial discrimination in the election.”
  The South Carolina cases are in accord with the commands of the Fifteenth Amendment and the laws passed pursuant to it. That Amendment provides as follows:
  “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
  The Amendment bans racial discrimination in voting by both state and nation. It thus establishes a national policy, obviously applicable to the right of Negroes not to be discriminated against as voters in elections to determine public governmental policies or to select public officials, national, state, or local. Shortly after its adoption Mr. Chief Justice Waite speaking for this Court said:
  “It follows that the amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 218.
  Other cases have reemphasized the Fifteenth Amendment's specific grant of this new constitutional right. Not content to rest congressional power to protect this new constitutional right on the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution, the Fifteenth Amendment’s framers added § 2, reading:
  “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
  And Mr. Justice Miller speaking for this Court declared that the Amendment’s granted right to be free from racial discrimination . . should be kept free and pure by congressional enactments whenever that is necessary.” Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 665. See also United States v. Reese, supra, at 218. And see Mr. Justice Bradley’s opinion on circuit in United States v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods 308, 314-316, 320-323. Acting pursuant to the power granted by the second section of the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress in 1870 provided as follows:
  “All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.” 8 U. S. C. § 31.
  The Amendment, the congressional enactment and the cases make explicit the rule against racial discrimination in the conduct of elections. Together they show the meaning of “elections.” Clearly the Amendment includes any election in which public issues are decided or public officials selected. Just as clearly the Amendment excludes social or business clubs. And the statute shows the congressional mandate against discrimination whether the voting on public issues and officials is conducted in community, state or nation. Size is not a standard.
  It is significant that precisely the same qualifications as those prescribed by Texas entitling electors to vote at county-operated primaries are adopted as the sole qualifications entitling electors to vote at the county-wide Jaybird primaries with a single proviso — Negroes are excluded. Everyone concedes that such a proviso in the county-operated primaries would be unconstitutional. The Jaybird Party thus brings into being and holds precisely the kind of election that the Fifteenth Amendment seeks to prevent. When it produces the equivalent of the prohibited election, the damage has been done.
  For a state to permit such a duplication of its election processes is to permit a flagrant abuse of those processes to defeat the purposes of the Fifteenth Amendment. The use of the county-operated primary to ratify the result of the prohibited election merely compounds the offense. It violates the Fifteenth Amendment for a state, by such circumvention, to permit within its borders the use of any device that produces an equivalent of the prohibited election.
  The only election that has counted in this Texas county for more than fifty years has been that held by the Jaybirds from which Negroes were excluded. The Democratic primary and the general election have become no more than the perfunctory ratifiers of the choice that has already been made in Jaybird elections from which Negroes have been excluded. It is immaterial that the state does not control that part of this elective process which it leaves for the Jaybirds to manage. The Jaybird primary has become an integral part, indeed the only effective part, of the elective process that determines who shall rule and govern in the county. The effect of the whole procedure, Jaybird primary plus Democratic primary plus general election, is to do precisely that which the Fifteenth Amendment forbids — 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.
  We reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment reversing that of the District Court. We affirm the District Court’s holding that the combined Jaybird-Democratic-general election machinery has deprived these petitioners of their right to vote on account of their race and color. The case is remanded to the District Court to enter such orders and decrees as are necessary and proper under the jurisdiction it has retained under 28 U. S. C. § 2202. In exercising this jurisdiction, the Court is left free to hold hearings to consider and determine what provisions are essential to afford Negro citizens of Fort Bend County full protection from future discriminatory Jaybird-Democratic-general election practices which deprive citizens of voting rights because of their color.
  Reversed and remanded.
  Mk. Justice Frankfurter.
  Petitioners are Negroes who claim that they and all Negroes similarly situated in Fort Bend County, Texas, are denied all voice in the primary elections for county offices by the activities of respondent association, the Jaybird Democratic Association. The Jaybird Association was organized in 1889 and from that time until the present has selected, first in mass meetings but for some time by ballot of its members, persons whom the organization indorses for election in the Democratic primary for county office. The Association has never permitted Negroes to participate in its selection of the candidates to be indorsed; balloting is open only to all white citizens of the county qualified under State law to vote. The District Court granted a declaratory judgment that Negroes in the county be allowed to participate in the balloting of the Association. The Court of Appeals reversed, saying that although the white voters in the county are “vainly holding” to “outworn and outmoded” practices, the action of the Association was not “action under color of state law” and therefore not in violation of federal law.
  The evidence, summarized by formal stipulation, shows that all rules of the Association are made by its members themselves or by its Executive Committee. Membership, defined by the rules of the Association, consists of the entire white voting population as shown in poll lists prepared by the county. The time of balloting, in what are called the Jaybird primaries, is set by the Executive Committee of the Association for a day early in May of each election year. The expenses of these primaries, the officiating personnel, the balloting places, the determination of the winner — all aspects of these primaries are exclusively controlled by the Association. The balloting rules in general follow those prescribed by the State laws regulating primaries. See Vernon’s Tex. Stat., 1948 (Rev. Civ. Stat.), Tit. 50, c. 13, now revised, 9 Vernon’s Tex. Civ. Stat., 1952, c. 13. But formal State action, either by way of legislative recognition or official authorization, is wholly wanting.
  The successful candidates in the Jaybird primaries, in formal compliance with State rules in that regard, file individually as candidates in the Democratic primary held on the fourth Saturday in July. No mention is made in the filing or in the listing of the candidates on the Democratic primary ballot that they are the Jaybird indorsees. That fact is conveyed to the public by word of mouth, through newspapers, and by other private means. There is no restriction on filing by anyone else as a candidate in the Democratic primary, nor on voting by Negroes in that official primary.
  For the sixty years of the Association’s existence, the candidate ultimately successful in the Democratic primary for every county-wide office was the man indorsed by the Jaybird Association. Indeed, other candidates almost never file in the Democratic primary. This continuous success over such a period of time has been the result of action by practically the entire qualified electorate of the county, barring Negroes.
  This case is for me by no means free of difficulty. Whenever the law draws a line between permissive and forbidden conduct cases are bound to arise which are not obviously on one side or thé other. These dubious situations disclose the limited utility of the figure of speech, a “line,” in the law. Drawing a “line” is necessarily exercising a judgment, however confined the conscientious judgment may be within the bounds of constitutional and statutory provisions, the course of decisions, and the presuppositions of the judicial process. If “line” is in the main a fruitful tool for dividing the sheep from the goats, it must not be forgotten that since the “line” is figurative the place of this or that case in relation to it cannot be ascertained externally but is a matter of the mind.
  Close analysis of what it is that the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits must be made before it can be determined what the relevant line is in the situation presented by this case. The Fifteenth Amendment, not the Fourteenth, outlawed discrimination on the basis of race or color with respect to the right to vote. Concretely, of course, it was directed against attempts to bar Negroes from having the same political franchise as white folk. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” U. S. Const., Amend. XV, § 1. The command against such denial or abridgment is directed to the United States and to the individual States. Therefore, violation of this Amendment and the enactments passed in enforcement of it must involve the United States or a State. In this case the conduct that is assailed pertains to the election of local Texas officials. To find a denial or abridgment of the guaranteed voting right to colored citizens of Texas solely because they are colored, one must find that the State has had a hand in it.
  The State, in these situations, must mean not private citizens but those clothed with the authority and the influence which official position affords. The application of the prohibition of the Fifteenth Amendment to “any State” is translated by legal jargon to read “State action.” This phrase gives rise to a false direction in that it implies some impressive machinery or deliberative conduct normally associated with what orators call a sovereign state. The vital requirement is State responsibility — that somewhere, somehow, to some extent, there be an infusion of conduct by officials, panoplied with State power, into any scheme by which colored citizens are denied voting rights merely because they are colored.
  As the action of the entire white voting community, the Jaybird primary is as a practical matter the instrument of those few in this small county who are politically active — the officials of the local Democratic party and, we may assume, the elected officials of the county. As a matter of practical politics, those charged by State law with the duty of assuring all eligible voters an opportunity to participate in the selection of candidates at the primary — the county election officials who are normally leaders in their communities — participate by voting in the Jaybird primary. They join the white voting community in proceeding with elaborate formality, in almost all respects parallel to the procedures dictated by Texas law for the primary itself, to express their preferences in a wholly successful effort to withdraw significance from the State-prescribed primary, to subvert the operation of what is formally the law of the State for primaries in this county.
  The legal significance of the Jaybird primary must be tested against the cases which, in an endeavor to screen what is effectively an exertion of State authority in preventing Negroes from exercising their constitutional right of franchise, have pierced the various manifestations of astuteness. In the last of the series, Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, we held that the State regulation there of primaries conducted by a political party made the party “required to follow these legislative directions an agency of the State in so far as it determines the participants in a primary election.” Id., at 663. Alternative routes have been suggested for concluding that the Jaybird primary is “so slight a change in form,” id., at 661, that the result should not differ in substance from that of Smith v. Allwright. The District Court found that the Jaybird Association is a political party within the meaning of the Texas legislation regulating the administration of primaries by political parties; it said that the Association could not avoid that result by holding its primary on a different date and by utilizing different methods than those prescribed by the statutes.
  Whether the Association is a political party regulated by Texas and thus subject to a duty of nondiscrimination, or is, as it claims, clearly not a party within the meaning of that legislation, failing as it does to attempt to comply with a number of the State requirements, particularly as to the date of the “primary,” is a question of State law not to be answered in the first instance by a federal court. We do not know what the Texas Supreme Court would say. An operation such as the Jaybird primary may be found by the Texas court to satisfy Texas law although it does not come within the formal definition; it may so be found because long-accepted customs and the habits of a people may generate “law” as surely as a formal legislative declaration, and indeed, sometimes even in the face of it. See, e. g., Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis R. Co. v. Browning, 310 U. S. 362, 369. But even if the Jaybird Association is a political party, a federal court cannot say that a political party in Texas is to hold a primary open to all on a day other than that fixed by Texas statute. This would be an inadmissible intervention of the federal judiciary into the political process of a State. If such a remedy is to be derived from a finding that the Jaybird Association is a political party, it is one that must be devised by the Texas courts. For the same reason, we cannot say that the Jaybird primary is a “primary” within the meaning of Texas law and so regulated by Texas law that Smith v. Allwright would apply.
  But assuming, as I think we must, that the Jaybird Association is not a political party holding a State-regulated primary, we should nonetheless decide this case against respondents on the ground that in the precise situation before us the State authority has come into play.
  The State of Texas has entered into a comprehensive scheme of regulation of political primaries, including procedures by which election officials shall be chosen. The county election officials are thus clothed with the authority of the State to secure observance of the State’s interest in “fair methods and a fair expression” of preferences in the selection of nominees. Cf. Waples v. Marrast, 108 Tex. 5, 12, 184 S. W. 180, 183. If the Jaybird Association, although not a political party, is a device to defeat the law of Texas regulating primaries, and if the electoral officials, clothed with State power in the county, share in that subversion, they cannot divest themselves of the State authority and help as participants in the scheme. Unlawful administration of a State statute fair on its face may be shown “by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself,” Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1, 8; here, the county election officials aid in this subversion of the State’s official scheme of which they are trustees, by helping as participants in the scheme.
  This is not a case of occasional efforts to mass voting strength. Nor is this a case of boss-control, whether crudely or subtly exercised. Nor is this a case of spontaneous efforts by citizens to influence votes or even continued efforts by a fraction of the electorate in support of good government. This is a case in which county election officials have participated in and condoned a continued effort effectively to exclude Negroes from voting. Though the action of the Association as such may not be proscribed by the Fifteenth Amendment, its role in the entire scheme to subvert the operation of the official primary brings it “within reach of the law. . . . [T]hey are bound together as the parts of a single plan. The plan may make the parts unlawful.” Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court, in Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 396.
  The State here devised a process for primary elections. The right of all citizens to share in it, and not to be excluded by unconstitutional bars, is emphasized by the fact that in Texas nomination in the Democratic primary is tantamount to election. The exclusion of the Negroes from meaningful participation in the only primary scheme set up by the State was not an accidental, unsought consequence of the exercise of civic rights by voters to make their common viewpoint count. It was the design, the very purpose of this arrangement that the Jaybird primary in May exclude Negro participation in July. That it was the action in part of the election officials charged by Texas law with the fair administration of the primaries, brings it within the reach of the law. The officials made themselves party to means whereby the machinery with which they are entrusted does not discharge the functions for which it was designed.-
  It does not follow, however, that the relief granted below was proper. Since the vice of this situation is not that the Jaybird primary itself is the primary dis-criminatorily conducted under State law but is that the determination there made becomes, in fact, the determination in the Democratic primary by virtue of the participation and acquiescence of State authorities, a federal court cannot require that petitioners be allowed to vote in the Jaybird primary. The evil here is that the State, through the action and abdication of those whom it has clothed with authority, has permitted white voters to go through a procedure which predetermines the legally devised primary. To say that Negroes should be allowed to vote in the Jaybird primary would be to say that the State is under a duty to see to it that Negroes may vote in that primary. We cannot tell the State that it must participate in and regulate this primary; we cannot tell the State what machinery it will use. But a court of equity can free the lawful political agency from the combination that subverts its capacity to function. What must be done is that this county be rid of the means by which the unlawful “usage,” R. S. § 2004, 8 U. S. C. § 31, in this case asserts itself.
  Ithas been suggested that there is a crucial distinction between this case and the South Carolina primary cases. There, it is said, the names of Democratic nominees were placed on the state’s general election ballots as Democratic nominees. Here Jaybird nominees are not put on any ballot as Jaybird nominees; they enter their own names as candidates in the Democratic primary. This distinction is not one of substance but of form, and a statement of this Court in Smith v. Allwright, supra, at 661, seems appropriate: “Such a variation in the result from so slight a change in form influences us to consider anew the legal validity of the distinction which has resulted in barring Negroes from participating in the nominations of candidates of the Democratic party in Texas.” (Emphasis supplied.) The same may be said about the attempted distinction between the “two-step” exclusion process in South Carolina and the “three-step” exclusion process in Texas.
  "In United States v. Reese et al., supra, p. 214, we hold 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 a necessary 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. The first has not been granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States; but the last has been.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 555-556. To the same effect, see Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 664-665; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 286. The Amendment has been held “self-executing.” See Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, 362-363.
  “We may mystify any thing. But if we take a plain view of the words of the Constitution, and give to them a fair and obvious interpretation, we cannot fail in most cases of coming to a clear understanding of its meaning. We shall not have far to seek. We shall find it on the surface, and not in the profound depths of speculation.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 393.
choices: Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Federated States of Micronesia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Marshall Islands Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Palau Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming United States Interstate Compact Philippines Indian Dakota