Wilford Horace Smith

Smith also positioned his case as outside the realm of "political questions," because earlier Supreme Court rulings, as well as the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, differentiated between civil rights, which were part of citizenship, and political rights, which could be defined more narrowly.Pildes, "Keeping Legal History Meaningful."{{Cite journal |last=Crum |first=Travis |date=September 14, 2022 |title=Voting Under the Federal Constitution |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4219260 |journal=Oxford Handbook of American Election Law (2024); Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-09-01. |pages=6}} Smith argued that Alabama was within its rights to establish eligibility requirements, but not, in his words, "to restrict the suffrage of the blacks without depriving a single white man of his right to vote."Goldstone, p. 225. Historian R. Volney Riser notes that "in purely doctrinal terms, Jackson Giles' Supreme Court case was an argument for federal intervention in state affairs and Wilford Smith had good technical reasons to believe he would succeed," based on the Court's demonstrated willingness at that time to intervene in state-level legal matters.Riser, p. 208.

Smith also positioned his case as outside the realm of "political questions," because earlier Supreme Court rulings, as well as the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, differentiated between civil rights, which were part of citizenship, and political rights, which could be defined more narrowly.Pildes, "Keeping Legal History Meaningful."{{Cite journal |last=Crum |first=Travis |date=September 14, 2022 |title=Voting Under the Federal Constitution |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4219260 |journal=Oxford Handbook of American Election Law (2024); Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-09-01. |pages=6}} Smith argued that Alabama was within its rights to establish eligibility requirements, but not, in his words, "to restrict the suffrage of the blacks without depriving a single white man of his right to vote."Goldstone, p. 225. Historian R. Volney Riser notes that "in purely doctrinal terms, Jackson Giles' Supreme Court case was an argument for federal intervention in state affairs and Wilford Smith had good technical reasons to believe he would succeed," based on the Court's demonstrated willingness at that time to intervene in state-level legal matters.Riser, p. 208.

In a 6-3 ruling issued on April 27, 1903, written by [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.|Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr]]., the Court ruled against Giles' request for relief.{{Cite web |title=Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/189/475/ |website=Justia.com}} Scholars describe his reasoning as a misrepresentation of both Smith's arguments and the Court's own practices: Holmes claimed that if Alabama's voter registration system was indeed unconstitutional, a ruling ordering Alabama to register Giles (or all eligible black voters) would involve the court in sustaining the unconstitutional scheme, whereas Smith had requested a ruling on a specific aspect of the system and the Supreme Court had a history of declaring portions of laws to be unconstitutional; Holmes likewise characterized the discriminatory application of the voter registration law as a political question and declared that the Court would not issue a ruling upholding a plaintiff's political rights because the only remedy would be judicial in nature, with the court unable to enforce its ruling without directly intervening in Alabama's governance.Brenner, pp. 863-864.Goldstone, p. 231.Riser, pp. 2-3, 212-213. In Riser's summation, "Holmes said that the court had jurisdiction but no power, that politics rather than the Constitution dictated his decision, and that a contrary ruling would make the Court party to a fraud."Riser, p. 2. Holmes suggested that Giles might sue Alabama for damages based on his denied application to register.Brenner, p. 864. The only other possibility for relief offered by the ruling was the suggestion that black Alabamans might turn to Congress for legislative remediation.Norrell, p. 297. In an essay, Smith described this possibility as "their way of disposing of the Negro by sending him elsewhere."{{Cite journal |last=Smith |first=Wilford H. |date=September 1904 |title=The Supreme Court of the United States and the Alabama Suffrage Case in Equity |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_colored-american-magazine_1904-09_7_9/page/n1/mode/2up |journal=The Colored American Magazine |volume=7 |issue=9 |pages=581}}

In a 6-3 ruling issued on April 27, 1903, written by [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.|Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr]]., the Court ruled against Giles' request for relief.{{Cite web |title=Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/189/475/ |website=Justia.com}} Scholars describe his reasoning as a misrepresentation of both Smith's arguments and the Court's own practices: Holmes claimed that if Alabama's voter registration system was indeed unconstitutional, a ruling ordering Alabama to register Giles (or all eligible black voters) would involve the court in sustaining the unconstitutional scheme, whereas Smith had requested a ruling on a specific aspect of the system and the Supreme Court had a history of declaring portions of laws to be unconstitutional; Holmes likewise characterized the discriminatory application of the voter registration law as a [[political question]] and declared that the Court would not issue a ruling upholding a plaintiff's political rights because the only remedy would be judicial in nature, with the court unable to enforce its ruling without directly intervening in Alabama's governance.Brenner, pp. 863-864.Goldstone, p. 231.Riser, pp. 2-3, 212-213. In Riser's summation, "Holmes said that the court had jurisdiction but no power, that politics rather than the Constitution dictated his decision, and that a contrary ruling would make the Court party to a fraud."Riser, p. 2. Holmes suggested that Giles might sue Alabama for damages based on his denied application to register.Brenner, p. 864. The only other possibility for relief offered by the ruling was the suggestion that black Alabamans might turn to Congress for legislative remediation.Norrell, p. 297. In an essay, Smith described this possibility as "their way of disposing of the Negro by sending him elsewhere."{{Cite journal |last=Smith |first=Wilford H. |date=September 1904 |title=The Supreme Court of the United States and the Alabama Suffrage Case in Equity |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_colored-american-magazine_1904-09_7_9/page/n1/mode/2up |journal=The Colored American Magazine |volume=7 |issue=9 |pages=581}}

===== ''Giles v. Teasley'' =====

===== ''Giles v. Teasley'' =====