In the case of Scott et al. v. Frazier et al., 1919, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over Florida's state constitution revision process. The plaintiffs argued that the revised constitution was invalid because it had not been approved by Congress before being put to a vote in Florida, as required by an act of Congress from 1867 for former Confederate states. However, the defendants contended that this requirement no longer applied since Florida had been readmitted into Union and its status as a rebel state was no longer relevant. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Frazier and upheld the validity of Florida's new constitution without congressional approval prior to ratification by voters within the state. The court held that once re-admitted into Union after Civil War, there were no further restrictions on these states' ability to revise their constitutions beyond those applicable to all other states under Article V of U.S Constitution.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Scott et al. v. Frazier et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Florida law requiring all voters to pay a poll tax was fundamentally unjust and violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The dissenters believed that this law disproportionately affected African Americans and poor whites, effectively disenfranchising them based on their economic status rather than any legitimate qualification for voting. They also criticized the majority for failing to adequately consider evidence demonstrating these discriminatory effects, arguing that such willful blindness undermined both constitutional principles and democratic values. Furthermore, they contended that by upholding this law, the Court was tacitly endorsing racial discrimination and class bias in electoral processes - an outcome they found deeply troubling given its potential implications for American democracy as a whole.