---
title: U.S. Const. Amend. XV. Suffrage not to be Denied on Account of Race, Color, or Prior Slave Status
collection: code
id: us-const:amend-xv
cite_as: U.S. Const. Amend. XV
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xv
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xv.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xv/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/1us-const-(v1)-2025-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=328b75b8_0#page=1449
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xiv.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xvi.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 4426
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xv.md?notes=all&start=11949
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
heading_path: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION / Amendments
---

# U.S. Const. Amend. XV. Suffrage not to be Denied on Account of Race, Color, or Prior Slave Status

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

## Cross References

Voting and elections, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II. and T. 21, Ch. 2, Art. 6.

## Law Reviews

For comment on Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S. Ct. 757, 88 L. Ed. 987 (1944), holding unconstitutional denial of right to vote in primary to black citizen, see 7 Ga. B.J. 245 (1944).

For comment on Turman v. Duckworth, 68 F. Supp. 744 (N.D. Ga. 1946), appeal dismissed, 329 U.S. 675, 67 S. Ct. 21, 91 L. Ed. 596, rehearing denied, 329 U.S. 829, 67 S. Ct. 296, 91 L. Ed. 704 (1946), see 9 Ga. B.J. 335 (1947).

For comment discussing discrimination against black voters manifested in voter registration requirements, in light of Davis v. Schnell, 81 F. Supp. 872 (S.D. Ala.), aff’d without opinion, 336 U.S. 933, 69 S. Ct. 749, 93 L. Ed. 1093 (1949), see 12 Ga. B.J. 94 (1949).

For article suggesting county unit system discriminates against classes of voters in violation of equal protection clause of U.S. Const., amend. 14, see 14 Ga. B.J. 28 (1951).

For note, “State Action and White Primaries,” see 2 J. of Pub. L. 463 (1953).

For comment discussing Supreme Court treatment of political questions, in light of Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S. Ct. 125, 5 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1960), see 23 Ga. B.J. 545 (1961).

For article discussing concept of judicial neutrality in relation to the school desegregation cases, see 11 J. of Pub. L. 48 (1962).

For comment on Anderson v. Martin, 206 F. Supp. 700 (D. La. 1962), holding designation of race of candidates on ballot does not violate constitutional rights, see 25 Ga. B.J. 416 (1963).

For article, “Reapportionment and Local Government,” see 1 Ga. L. Rev. 596 (1967).

For article, “The Right to Hold Public Office and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments,” see 18 Mercer L. Rev. 367 (1967).

For article, “Law and Social Change: The Dynamics of the ‘State Action’ Doctrine,” see 17 J. of Pub. L. 258 (1968).

For comment discussing Gaston County v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 678 (D.C. Cir. 1968), as to the propriety under U.S. Const., amend. 15, as well as the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1971 et seq., of reinstating the literacy requirement for voting in a county which had maintained a racially segregated school system, see 3 Ga. L. Rev. 485 (1969).

For article discussing functional broadening of Congress’ delegated powers and its effect on civil liberties, see 18 J. of Pub. L. 103 (1969).

For article, “Federalizing Through the Franchise: The Supreme Court and Local Government,” see 6 Ga. L. Rev. 34 (1971).

For comment on the right to vote as affected by state residency requirements, in light of Blumstein v. Ellington, 337 F. Supp. 323 (M.D. Tenn. 1970), aff’d sub nom. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S. Ct. 995, 31 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1972), see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 389 (1971).

For article, “State Action and Civil Rights,” see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 519 (1972).

For article, “Racial Gerrymandering and Southern State Legislative Redistricting: Attorney General Determinations Under the Voting Rights Act,” see 22 J. of Pub. L. 37 (1973).

For article, “Toward a Constitutional Definition of Racial Discrimination,” see 25 Emory L.J. 509 (1976).

For article discussing constitutional challenges to at-large elections on grounds of dilution of the vote, see 10 Ga. L. Rev. 353 (1976).

For article discussing the impact on bond issues of challenges to voting procedures, see 15 Ga. St. B.J. 15 (1978).

For note, “ERA: The Effect of Extending the Time for Ratification on Attempts to Rescind Prior Ratifications,” see 28 Emory L.J. 71 (1979).

For article discussing federal civil litigation, with respect to U.S. Const., Art. III and amends. 1, 14, and 15, issues, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 821 (1979).

For survey article on constitutional law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 53 (1982).

For article, “Amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: What Is the Intent of the Results Test?,” see 36 Emory L.J. 1 (1987).

For note, “Towards Proportional Representation?: The Strange Bedfellows of Racial Gerrymandering and Equal Protection in Easley v. Cromartie,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 945 (2002).

For article, “Education: Education’s Elusive Future, Storied Past, and the Fundamental Inequities Between,” see 46 Ga. L. Rev. 557 (2012).

For article, “What We Can Learn About the Art of Persuasion from Candidate Abraham Lincoln: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Three Speeches that Propelled Lincoln into the Presidency,” see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 521 (2013).

For article, “Diversity, Democracy & Pluralism: Confronting the Reality of Our Inequality,” see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 577 (2015).

For article, “The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions,” see 55 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (2020).

For note, “Georgia’s Runoff Election System Has Run Its Course,” see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 1063 (2020).

For article, “Racially Neutral in Form, Racially Discriminatory in Fact: The Implications for Voting Rights of Giving Disproportionate Racial Impact the Constitutional Importance It Deserves,” see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 811 (2020).

For note, “Election Spotlight: Nearly Twenty Years After Hanging Chads, Problems Persist in Florida,” see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 895 (2020).

For comment, “Voter Suppression Post-Shelby: Impacts and Issues of Voter Purge and Voter ID Laws,” see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 857 (2020).

## Right to Vote Generally.

The right of suffrage is a political right, as compared with a property or civil right. In the absence of an express constitutional grant of suffrage, it is not a vested, absolute, or natural right such as it is deemed a citizen cannot be deprived of except by due process of law. The right to vote is not granted to a citizen by the United States Constitution. Nor is it a privilege of a citizen of the United States under U.S. Const., amend. 14. Nor does U.S. Const., amend. 15 abridge a state’s power over suffrage, but only denies to the states any action which discriminates against citizens of the United States to qualify or vote, by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Though the Constitution of this state guarantees the right of suffrage to those who meet its qualifications, and they are entitled to register, and this right cannot be absolutely denied or taken away by legislative enactment, the legislature has the right to prescribe reasonable regulations as to how these qualifications shall be determined. The fact that a citizen who meets one of several tests provided by the Constitution had to register or reregister does not deprive him of his constitutional right of suffrage, but is only a reasonable regulation under which the right may be exercised. Franklin v. Harper, 205 Ga. 779, 55 S.E.2d 221, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 594 (1949), appeal dismissed, 339 U.S. 946, 70 S.Ct. 804, 94 L.Ed. 1361 (1950).

Protection of right to vote extends

## To State and Federal Elections.

Constitution of the United States protects right of all qualified citizens to vote in state as well as in federal elections. Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17330 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. dismissed, 459 U.S. 1012, 103 S. Ct. 368, 74 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1982).

Any alleged infringement of voting

## Rights Must Be Carefully and Meticulously Scrutinized.

Since right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil rights, any alleged infringement of right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17330 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. dismissed, 59 U.S. 1012, 103 S. Ct. 368, 74 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1982).

Right to vote includes right to have

## Vote Counted.

Qualified citizens not only have a constitutionally protected right to vote, but also the right to have their votes counted, a right which can neither be denied outright, nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, nor diluted by ballot box stuffing. Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17330 (5th Cir. 1981).

## Voter Equality Generally.

Once the geographical unit for which a representative is to be chosen is designated, all who participate in the election are to have an equal vote. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S. Ct. 801, 9 L. Ed. 2d 821, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 1944 (1963).

The concept of political equality in the voting booth extends to all phases of state elections. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S. Ct. 801, 9 L. Ed. 2d 821, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 1944 (1963).

## Inapplicable to Party Primaries.

A party primary merely chooses candidates or nominees of a political party to be submitted to the entire electorate in the general election, and is not an “election” within the meaning of that term as used in the statutory and constitutional provisions of Georgia conferring upon its citizens the right to vote in an election. The right to participate in such a primary does not come within the protection of U.S. Const., amend. 15 and U.S. Const., amend. 14. Cox v. Peters, 208 Ga. 498, 67 S.E.2d 579, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 415 (1951).

Distinctions based on race or color

## Unconstitutional.

U.S. Const., amend. 15 forbids any distinction in the voting process based upon race or color irrespective of whether such distinction involves the actual denial of the vote. United States v. Bibb County Democratic Executive Comm., 222 F. Supp. 493, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3264 (M.D. Ga. 1962).

Source of congressional power to

## Eliminate Discrimination.

Congressional power to legislate in furtherance of the elimination of racial discrimination is derived from U.S. Const., amend. 13, the power over interstate commerce, and the power under U.S. Const., amend. 14 and 15. United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc., 474 F.2d 115, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11645 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 826, 94 S. Ct. 131, 38 L. Ed. 2d 59, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 356 (1973).

## Constitutionality of Voter Registration Laws.

Ga. L., 1949, p. 1204 (see O.C.G.A. Art. 6, Ch. 2, T. 21), as against the attack on the act as a whole, does not violate U.S. Const., amend. 14, nor U.S. Const., amend. 15. Franklin v. Harper, 205 Ga. 779, 55 S.E.2d 221, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 594 (1949).

## Grounds for Attacking Constitutionality of Voter Registration Laws.

The mere possibility that a board of registrars may act arbitrarily or recklessly in administering the law and thereby violate constitutional rights is not a ground for declaring a voter registration act as a whole unconstitutional. Franklin v. Harper, 205 Ga. 779, 55 S.E.2d 221, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 594 (1949).

Every state official is bound by U.S. Const., amend. 14, and U.S. Const., amend. 15. United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 80 S. Ct. 519, 4 L. Ed. 2d 524, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 2012 (1960).

Segregation of polling places, although involving no actual denial of the vote, is constitutionally impermissible as the elective franchise is a junction of interest importance in the process of government and so intrinsically characteristic of the dignity of citizenship. Anderson v. Courson, 203 F. Supp. 806, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3219 (M.D. Ga. 1962).

Impact of qualifying fee statute on

## Exercise of Franchise.

Where a state qualifying fee statute has a real and appreciable impact on the exercise of the franchise and where this impact is related to the resources of the voters supporting a particular candidate, the statute must be closely scrutinized and found reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of legitimate state objectives in order to pass constitutional muster. Stoner v. Fortson, 359 F. Supp. 579, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13889 (N.D. Ga. 1972).

## At-large Election System Constitutional.

African-American residents of a city failed to establish that, by retaining an at-large election system for city officials, the city acted with a discriminatory purpose in violation of the federal constitution. Cofield v. City of LaGrange, 969 F. Supp. 749, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9568 (N.D. Ga. 1997).

Elements of proof of claim that mi-


> The printed notes continue for 4,426 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xv.md?notes=all&start=11949