◆ SpookStack

<2... does provide a remedy in the cor bf a civil action instituted on the part of the Attorney General." House Report No, 291, to accompany H.R. 6127, U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News 1966, 1977 (1957) (Siaphasie added) to voting rights, there is nothing narrow about the scope of the Act as to interference with voting rights. The statute ia not limited to physical acts or to direct interference with the act of voting but applies to-- “any act or practice which would deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured vy subsec- tion (a) or (b}. . ." The statute applies to “any person” who shall-- ‘intimidate, threaten, coerce or attempt to intimi- date, threaten or coerce for the purpose of inter- fering. with the right of such person to vote." There is no doubt that this language applies to private indi- vidcis. And there is very little doubt that the Act protects the xight to register and to engage in activities encouraging citizens to register. As discussed more fully elsewhere, integral, indispensable part of the voting process. stage that is vulnerable to abuse by the registrar or to unlawful con- duct by private persons. registration is an 18 It is alse a Ever since the Supreme court outlawed the “white” primary, it has been apparent that the main battleground in the war cver for example, ‘Ceuncils and un rr) 4553, 226 F. 19 Negro suffrage would be the registration office. See, the description of the activities of the citizene parish registrars in United States v.. “major mischief to be combatted in the 1957 Act was Louisiana, E.D.La. aware that a economic coercion ard thre:ts of intimidation by private persons that would deny or i 20 interfer:: with, the Negro's access to registration. , | ! tere often than not, the economic coercion and intimidation by priva-e persons are triggered by an educational campaign to encourag:: registration. 268 F. 2:1 653 is a case in point. - 2B - United States v. Beatty, 6 Cir. 1961, . T.e case arose in Haywood :