◆ SpookStack

oN, eee “Ex parte Yarbrough, The Xu Xiun Ala. ceases, ef the election procedure wien thciz choice is of significance”. Ny dere, in terms of a meaningful ricgh= to vote, int ference with Negro citizens’ registering is istacference at the most critical = time oF course that stage of the alestion procedure./ cna framers of the Constitution neither they éid not know about the regiscrosic: pescess; but/they did Mot have in mind the selection of senstors a...4 representatives by the direct primary. In United Stacss v. Louisiana, EVD.La. 1963, m Oocnhel sroundcs, 225 F. Supp. 353, 359, aff'é./issi., 396 U.s, 145 his Cour said: "Congressional authority furccr Article I, §4] ex sends to registration, & shese of the electoral aug Feathers but today ssrocess unknown to the rs a critical, inseparable che electoral process which must nece concern the United States, since registration ts vote covers voting in federal as well as in stite elections. In United States v. Manninc, i.D.la. 1963, 215 F. Supp. 272, one o= the constitutional atsacis oa theo Civil Rights Act of 1960 was Girected at the provision for --lis... registrars. In the opinion upholding the act, the Court considused it important that-- “Por purposes of ac objective the electic ne process. thas starts with seuistration, Sie lee scr, écLstration ils an in- divisible part of eleauis: . There is no separate registration = h-@Téctions. Any interference with the ¢ register is therefere i election,“ 215 F. Supp. {c) Classic relied on three ingoxsant cases that constsue the o ‘aature and extent of the power of Congress to regulate federal Slections: Ex parte Siebold, 1552, 100 U.S. 371, 25 L.Ed. 717; 1884, 110 U.s. 652, 4 6.Cb. 152, 28 L.Ed, 274; and Sursesghs v. United States, 1934, . 534, §4 S.ct 3.58, 485, Deecom, These cases 78 th ty Waele 3aMn I7 aow Sf Lae au