Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Fortis Morse, Kenneth Curtis Bartholomew And Kimberly J. Enderson v. Republican Party Of Virginia Et Al.

• 1995 • 517 U.S. 186 • Rehnquist Court
In the case of Fortis Morse, Kenneth Curtis Bartholomew and Kimberly J. Enderson v. Republican Party of Virginia et al., 1995, the plaintiffs challenged a fee charged by the Republican Party for participation in its primary election as a poll tax prohibited under the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 10 of Voting Rights Act (VRA). The Supreme Court ruled that neither provision applied because they only pertain to state actions, not those taken by political parties which are...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 1995
Docket: 94-203
517 U.S. 186
116 S. Ct. 1186
134 L. Ed. 2d 347
1996 U.S. LEXIS 2164
Argued: Oct 02, 1995

Fortis Morse, Kenneth Curtis Bartholomew And Kimberly J. Enderson v. Republican Party Of Virginia Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Fortis Morse, Kenneth Curtis Bartholomew and Kimberly J. Enderson v. Republican Party of Virginia et al., 1995, the plaintiffs challenged a fee charged by the Republican Party for participation in its primary election as a poll tax prohibited under the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 10 of Voting Rights Act (VRA). The Supreme Court ruled that neither provision applied because they only pertain to state actions, not those taken by political parties which are private entities. The court also found that even if these provisions did apply to party primaries, this particular fee would still be permissible since it was used solely for administrative costs associated with conducting an open primary rather than being imposed as a prerequisite for voting or registering to vote.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, Justice Stevens argued that the $45 fee required to participate in a party primary was equivalent to a poll tax and therefore unconstitutional under the 24th Amendment. He contended that this fee served as an obstacle preventing low-income individuals from participating in the political process, thereby violating their rights. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's view that primaries were not elections but rather internal party affairs; instead asserting they played a crucial role in determining who would ultimately hold public office and should thus be subject to constitutional scrutiny like general elections. The dissent also criticized how such fees could potentially allow parties to manipulate outcomes by selectively discouraging certain demographics from voting.

Opinion written by Justice JPStevens
Decided: Mar 27, 1996
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms