The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Fifteenth Amendment Claim Against West Virginia State Bar's Reserving Board Seat for an "African-American Lawyer" Can Go Forward
An opinion Wednesday by Chief Judge Thomas Kleeh (N.D. W. Va.) in Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, Inc. v. Pickens deals with a rule of the West Virginia state bar, which is organized as a government agency under the control of the state supreme court. The rule provides,
The Board of Governors [of the state bar] shall consist of the following twenty-five voting members and one non-voting member:
- The president, president-elect, vice president, and immediate past president;
- One governor from each of the sixteen State Bar districts set forth in Bylaw 5.04;
- Three additional governors from State Bar District Eight;
- One African-American lawyer elected as described in Bylaw 5.06;
- The Chairperson of the Young Lawyer Section; and
- The Dean of the West Virginia University College of Law, as a non-voting member.
The long opinion focuses mostly on procedural matters, but it also concludes that "The Fifteenth Amendment applies to State Bar elections because the elections are state-sanctioned and involve public issues":
The Fifteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, "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." It is "simple in command," "comprehensive in reach," "[f]undamental in purpose and effect," and "self-executing in operation[.]" In analyzing whether the Fifteenth Amendment is implicated in an election, "[t]he 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" individuals are "denied voting rights merely because" of their race or color. "The Amendment grants protection to all persons, not just members of a particular race." …
By statute, the State Bar is "a part of the judicial department of the state government[.]" By statute, the State Bar is an administrative agency of the State Supreme Court. Defendants are tasked with enforcing the State Bar Bylaws, which are promulgated by the State Supreme Court. The Bylaws provide that only African Americans may vote in the election for the African-American Board seat. Certainly, assuming that FAIR's allegations are true, this is a situation where "somewhere, somehow, to some extent," there was an "infusion of conduct by officials, panoplied with State power," into a scheme by which individuals were denied voting rights merely because of their race.
The Court's ruling is supported by Supreme Court precedent indicating that the Fifteenth Amendment applies to elections for seats on boards of state agencies. In Rice v. Cayetano (2000), a Hawaii law limited who could vote in an election for the governing authority of a state agency known as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The right to vote was limited to "Hawaiians," which was defined as "those persons who are descendants of people inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778." The plaintiff, who was a Hawaiian citizen lacking the requisite ancestry to be considered "Hawaiian," challenged the provision, and the Supreme Court found that the election limitation violated the Fifteenth Amendment.
The Fifteenth Amendment also applies to elections with far less state involvement than what has been alleged here. For instance, the Supreme Court has found that pre-primaries run by self-governing private groups may implicate the Fifteenth Amendment. In Terry v. Adams (1953), the Jaybird Democratic Association, a private group whose membership was limited to white voters, conducted "pre-primary" elections. Candidates who were successful in the pre-primary elections did not automatically enter the local Democratic primaries, but they "nearly always [did] so," and they almost always "won without opposition" in those primaries and in the general elections. The Jaybirds contended that their elections were not regulated by the state, so they fell outside the Fifteenth Amendment's purview. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, finding that the elections were an unlawful attempt to duplicate election processes in order to defeat the purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment. Here, taking FAIR's allegations as true, the level of state involvement far exceeds the level of state involvement found to violate the Fifteenth Amendment in Terry.
As the parties have discussed, the Fifteenth Amendment applies to, but is not limited to, "any election in which public issues are decided or public officials selected." "All citizens, regardless of race, have an interest in selecting officials who make policies on their behalf, even if those policies will affect some groups more than others." Based on the explicit state involvement here, the Court believes it unnecessary to analyze whether "public issues" or "public officials" are implicated in a State Bar election. Regardless, the Court would find that they are.
The regulation of the legal profession on behalf of the State Supreme Court is a matter that concerns public issues. All West Virginia attorneys, including Member A and Member B, have an interest in the selection of Board members who make policies on their behalf. The State Bar is not a private club. It is the state agency that regulates the practice of law in West Virginia. All licensed attorneys in good standing must be members. The State Bar's self-described purposes include "protect[ing] the interests of the public" and "improv[ing] the relations between the public and the bench and the bar[.]"The citizens of West Virginia have an interest in the selection of the Board members, whose policies may affect them. For these reasons, the Court finds that State Bar elections are elections "in which public issues are decided." …
Joshua P. Thompson and Samantha R. Romero (Pacific Legal Foundation) and Martin P. Sheehan (Sheehan and Associates, PLLC) represent plaintiff.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
YES!!!!
Guy who wants lynchings has strong feelings against black rights.
It says a seat is reserved for an "African-American Lawyer", not necessarily a Black one.
It is so profoundly depressing that we're still doing this in 2025. The culture of these racist quotas just won't die, civil rights litigation is still necessary. I'm glad there's lawyers out there willing to make dealing with this nonsense their career, because I wouldn't have the patience to be litigating against racists all day.
The Bylaws were first enacted in 1947, and I was unable to find any reference online to the date on which Article 5 was revised to include the "African American" quota (but that particular term would certainly not have been used in 1947). However, it could have been done in the 1970s or 1980s, I suppose.
It is interesting that no one seems to have mentioned when the bylaws were changed. Maybe this will be revealed in due course.
It appears to be 1985.
The plaintiffs were found to have standing despite not having applied for a position from which the rules excluded them on account of race. Sometimes you have to ask and be turned down to have standing, even if asking would be futile. Sometimes you don't have to ask and be turned down because asking would be futile. I don't feel like there is a coherent standing rule.
I agree with the decision. On the Hawaiian case, I think that if things had been structured slightly differently, the case should have gone the other way. I think that native Hawaiians should be allowed to organize themselves as a tribe or nation and the state of Hawaii should be allowed to recognize that nation as a political entity. I also think, as a policy matter, that the federal governent should do so as well.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that if the federal government de-recognizes a tribe, even out of spite, then any attempts at self-organization or self-help they may engage in suddenly get branded racism, and any attempts by state government to recognize or help them get struck down by the Civil War Amendments. I think this is a perverse application of these amendments. I think Indian tribes are a sui generis constitutional category. I think even unrecognized tribes still have limited aboriginal rights, including a right to self-organization and self-help. For these reasons, I do not think state recognition and support of federally unrecognized tribes, as long as there is a reasonable factual historical basis for regarding them as tribes, should be prohibited by the Civil War Amendments.
Nor do I see anything special about the continental United States. As I see it, aboriginal inhabitants of overseas states and territories ought to be entitled to the same aboriginal rights as within the continental United States.
But they weren't a tribe. Tribes were pre-existing groups. The point of the constitutional treatment of those was to protect those pre-existing groups, not to allow alternative political structures to be formed. Otherwise why can't Puerto Ricans also announce that they're an Indian tribe? Or Cajuns?
Historically, what is now Hawaii was governed by small numbers of royalty whose life and death powers over the rest of the population made Victorian England seem egalitarian. Is that what the "tribes" would revert to?
Totally up to them how they’d like their government to be. Not our business.
Up to who? The King? The small numbers of royalty?
It's good to be the King!
They had a king before the annexation of Hawaii. That’s enough pre-existing historical political organization to pass muster in my book. If they want a different political structure after annexation, as I see it it’s up to them.
As to why not Puerto Ricans or Cajuns, the asnswer is that Puerto Ricans and Cajuns were originally colonists from Europe and not aboriginal.
I understand it may seem unfair, bit that’s the traditional distinction.
I understand Polynesians first settled in Hawaii about a thousand years ago, a lot more recently than the North American continent. But nonetheless, while the line may be somewhat arbitrary, as I see it a non-European people arriving a thousand years ago gets to be considered aboriginal.
Also, as to Puerto Rico, the Spainish attempted to exterminate the Tainos people. But if there is a group of people who can claim descent from survivors and have some evidence, I think they would be entitled to organize as a tribe. Tribes are peoples, not just governments. It’s just not fair to externinate people and wipe out their government and then claim that if you do that, successfully their descendants will never again have any rights. I see it somewhat as Justice Gorsuch does. There’s a certain element of fairness involved here.
A quick glance at Wikipedia - The Taino have a genetic mutation in mitochondrial DNA that permits ascertaining descent through the female line, and there are in fact modern Taino activists claiming that despite the Spanish genocide effort, not only are they not dead yet, they are getting better.
I think that in general they are entitled to be treated sympathetically. So yes, what I am saying applies to Puerto Rico too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno
"Otherwise why can't Puerto Ricans also announce that they're an Indian tribe? Or Cajuns?"
Or Jews? Gefilte-fish Pow-Wow!
Jews do not claim to be aboriginally native to the United States. They claim to be aboriginally native to the land of Israel. Israel is not a US territory. US Indian law concerns only people who claim to be aboriginally native to the United States. As I see it, that should also include US territories like Puerto Rico and states like Hawaii. But whether it does or doesn’t has nothing to do with Jews.
"native Hawaiians should be allowed to organize themselves as a tribe or nation "
Why? The idea that tribes are sovereign is obsolete.
They are US citizens, they should have all the rights of US citizens and nothing else
Indian tribes are a thing in the constitution. So is private property. Communists think private property is obsolete. So if they acquire power they can just abolish it like that, no need for a constitutional amendment?
I generally agree with Justice Gorsuch that we should interpret the constitution’s recognition of aboriginal rights somewhat liberally. If you don’t like it, amend the constitution and get rid of it. Or persuade Congress - they have a great deal of power in this regard.
Yes, OK. Empty islands have been populated. 1000 years, OK.
And, empty places populated 400 years ago. Do they count ?
There's more to this than can be sorted out 'fairly', if that's the goal.
Sorting out 'ownership' and inherent rights to a 'place' can never be made final, for humans won't stand still, nor should they. People can agree and later change the agreement.
Self-determination is important. As to the size and scope of a group's right is TBD.
Just about every legal category has hard boundary cases that could potentially be called either way. That doesn’t make the categories involved useless. As Justice Holmes observed, day and night have no exact boundary, only shades of gray. Yet the distinction between the two is hardly meaningless or unworkable.
Also, being a tribe is a distinct concept from having rights to land. There are recognized tribes with little or no tribal land. Tribal status conveys a number of rights independent of land ownership. Moreover, tribes often have limited rights to a considerably larger amount of land than the amount they own outright. Oklahoma is a good example of this. So the “ownership” concept isn’t necessarily relevant.
I would think they would need to quote the pertinent by-law as well.
The 15th amendment on its terms says only "the right to vote", not a right to seek office. So in addition to reserving the seat, the state would also need to limit who can vote for who fills that seat, but that isn't in the language EV quoted. (The Hawaiian case certainly limited who could vote, that was much of the purpose of the scheme).
EV might not have quoted that part, but that was indeed in the rules. Only an African-American lawyer was eligible to fill the seat, and only African-American lawyers were eligible to vote for the seat.
Okay, good enough. That certainly brings it square within the 15th amendment's text.
The only way to stop discrimination, is to STOP DISCRIMINATION.
I should not be required to be a member of this organization in order to ply my trade.
If it was a voluntary organization, it could be as woke as it wants. But it is permitted to go off the rails on my dime.