Anti-Miscegenation Statutes in the United States Essay

2118 Words Sep 15th, 2012 9 Pages
Analyze and evaluate each case independently by providing the following (about two paragraphs per case):
In 1948, Andrea Perez, a Mexican-American woman, and Sylvester Davis, an African-American man,filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Clerk W.G. Sharp (Perez vs. Sharp, October 1, 1948).Earlier, they had sought a marriage license from the Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office but were denied such because Perez was racially classified as white and Davis as negro.
“In this proceeding in mandamus, petitioners seek to compel the County Clerk of Los Angeles County to issue them a certificate of registry (Civ. Code, § 69a) and a license to marry. (Civ. Code, § 69.) In the application for a license, petitioner Andrea Perez states that she
…show more content…
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
Compare and contrast both cases in regards to the Anti-Miscegenation Statutes
“There is no redress for the serious restriction of the right of Negroes, Mulattoes, Mongolians, and Malays to marry.... A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains.” Justice Roger J. Traynor, Perez v. Sharp
The turning point came with Perez v. Sharp (1948), also known as

Related Documents