Today in Supreme Court History: May 13, 1912

5/13/1912: Seventeenth Amendment is approved by the House of Representatives. The Senate approved it the prior month. The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913.

Comments

[Malika the Maiz]

There’s been a moral panic about too much emphasis on race by history teachers, historical institutions (museums, parks, etc.,) but it’s really difficult to teach American history without focusing on race and racism because it pops up all over the place. For example, until today I didn’t know about this sordid bit of history in the story of the 17th amendment:

“In 1911, the House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 39 proposing a constitutional amendment for direct election of senators. The original resolution passed by the House contained the following clause:[37]
The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.

This so-called "race rider" clause would have strengthened the powers of states over senatorial elections and weakened those of Congress by overriding Congress's power to override state laws affecting the manner of senatorial elections.[38]
Since the 1890s, nearly all blacks in the South, and many poor whites, had been disenfranchised by new provisions in state constitutions that were discriminatory in practice. This meant that these millions of people had no political representation, and most of the South was de facto one-party states. The "rider" was intended to enable these states to continue these practices, protected from any federal interference.

When the resolution came before the Senate, Senator Joseph L. Bristow (R-KS) proposed an amendment which eliminated the rider. This amendment was approved by 45 votes to 44 after Vice President James S. Sherman cast a tie-breaking "yea" vote.[39]

The amended resolution was then adopted by a vote of 64 to 24, with four not voting.[40]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The proposed original version of the 17A was a gloss on Art. 1, sec. 4, cl. 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The states before the 17A were already journeying toward a more democratic approach. As one summary notes:

As a result of such developments, the year before the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, at least twenty-nine states were nominating Senators on a popular basis, and, as a consequence, the constitutional discretion of the state legislatures had been reduced to little more than that retained by presidential electors.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-17/historical-background-on-popular-election-of-senators

The 17A provides an express right to vote:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years

The people have a right to vote for U.S. senators. Rick Hasen wrote a book supporting an amendment that generally supports a right to vote. We now have a bunch of voting rights provisions dealing with different aspects of the right to vote.

A clean right to vote amendment would be a good idea.

[SMP0328]

Would such an amendment mean voting registration would no longer be permitted? Would this right be limited to citizens, be expanded to legal residents, or include illegal immigrants? Would I have to reside in a State before voting in its elections?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It depends on the specific text and the interpretation of the text.

[SMP0328]

I thought you had a specific text in mind in your OP.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

His book provides different possible texts & whatever the text will be, it will be subject to interpretation.

[SMP0328]

From captcrisis.com

Apple v. Pepper, 587 U.S. 273 (decided May 13, 2019): purchasers of apps at App Store are direct purchasers and therefore can sue Apple as a monopoly under the Clayton Act (as of this writing litigation is ongoing)

Bowman v. Monsanto, 569 U.S. 278 (decided May 13, 2013): it is a patent infringement for a farmer to sell soybean seeds produced by plants grown from patented genetically modified soybean seeds

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (decided May 13, 1963): prosecution must turn over all evidence favorable to defendant

Morris & Co. v. Skandinava Ins. Co., 279 U.S. 405 (decided May 13, 1929): no jurisdiction over insurance dispute where only connection with forum state (Mississippi) was reinsuring some risks there; policy at issue was issued in South America, loss occurred there, and defendant was based in another state (Louisiana)

United States v. Noland, 517 U.S. 535 (decided May 13, 1996): bankruptcy court can re-order priority of creditors but not as to the IRS which has statutory priority unless “inequitable conduct”

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (decided May 13, 1991): Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 did not invalidate arbitration clause in securities representative’s employment contract

Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, 587 U.S. 262 (decided May 13, 2019): statute of limitations for qui tam (“private attorney general”) action where United States decides not to intervene begins when the qui tam plaintiff first notifies relevant federal official (here, contractors submitting fraudulent invoices for security guard work in Iraq), when the qui tam plaintiff first found out about it

44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (decided May 13, 1996): statute prohibiting advertising of liquor prices violated First Amendment

Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (decided May 13, 1957): warrant needed to search and seize entire contents of cabin where defendants (two fugitives from justice and two accused of helping them) had been hiding and which police had surveilled for 24 hours; Court appends the extensive list of the innocuous items seized; I was born in that year and it reminds me of life when I was a little kid, right down to the Kent cigarettes my mother smoked and my Swingline “Tot” stapler

In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 (decided May 13, 1889): double jeopardy rule precluded prosecuting Utah man for adultery involving one woman where he had already served time for bigamy at the same time involving her and another woman

Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 (decided May 13, 2002): state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case to federal court (the issue arose because after removal the federal claims were dismissed, leaving only state law claims)

[Syd Henderson]

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (decided May 13, 1963): prosecution must turn over all evidence favorable to defendant.

As Mona Lisa Vito reminded us.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice Jackson, the only justice since Ginsburg who is using the page, dropped the transcript of another speech:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx