March 2009 Vol. 107 No. 5 THE REVIEW

“Airbrushed Out of the Constitutional Canon”: The Evolving Understanding of Giles v. Harris, 1903–1925

Samuel Brenner

Richard H. Pildes argued in an influential 2000 article that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Giles v. Harris, which was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, was the “one decisive turning point” in the history of “American (anti)-democracy.” In Giles, Holmes rejected on questionable grounds Jackson W. Giles’s challenge to the new Alabama Constitution of 1901—a document which was designed to disfranchise and had the effect of disfranchising African Americans. The decision thus contributed significantly to the development of the all-white electorate in the South, and the concomitant marginalization of southern African Americans. According to Pildes, however, the case was “airbrushed out of the constitutional canon” despite its importance—perhaps, Pildes theorized, because the American constitutional tradition takes issues of democratic governance “off the map.” Certainly, before Pildes brought the case back to prominence, few of the standard constitutional law casebooks even mentioned the decision. The case, however, disappeared from the canon in a far more gradual and nuanced manner than the epithet “airbrushed out of the constitutional canon” would suggest.

This Note traces the ways in which the decision in Giles was received and interpreted in both the general media and legal scholarship in the two decades after the decision was handed down in 1903. It argues that while during this period there was no conscious attempt to “airbrush” the decision out of the constitutional canon, as the case gradually came to be viewed by some scholars as one more concerned with procedural technicalities than with the core meaning of democracy, constitutional scholars interested in studying questions of race and disfranchisement increasingly looked toward cases (both democratic and antidemocratic) that were perhaps procedurally simpler and cleaner.

   //  VIEW PDF
& Other Current Events

Judicial Diversity After Shelby County v. Holder

In 2014, voters in ten of the fifteen states previously covered by the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") preclearance...

Fall Submission Season

MLR’s Articles Office will open its fall submission season on Monday, August 18!  The Articles...

The Ninth Circuit's Treatment of Sexual Orientation: Defining “Rational Basis Review with Bite”

On February 10, Nevada's Democratic attorney general decided to stop defending the state's constitutional...

Inhibiting Intrastate Inequalities: A Congressional Approach to Ensuring Equal Opportunity to Finance Public Education

The United States has exhibited a strong commitment to public education throughout its history. The local...

War Is Governance: Explaining the Logic of the Laws of War from a Principal-Agent Perspective

What is the purpose of the international law on armed conflict, and why would opponents bent on destroying...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List