Also known as: previous conditions of servitude · 15th Amendment servitude clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A historical status of having been held in slavery or involuntary servitude, which the Fifteenth Amendment forbids the United States or any State from using as a ground for denying or abridging the right of citizens to vote.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pierre Poulin, whose ancestors were held in involuntary servitude before emancipation, registers to vote in a state election. Local officials refuse his application solely because of that family history. The Fifteenth Amendment directly forbids the denial, so a federal court orders the officials to count his ballot and enjoins the practice.
Paula Pierce attempts to register to vote in a federal election. The registrar rejects her application after learning her great-grandparents were formerly enslaved. Because the denial rests on previous condition of servitude, a federal court orders her registration accepted and enjoins the practice.
Pablo Perez sues a city after its election board cancels polling sites in neighborhoods historically tied to sharecropping families. City officials admit the decision targeted residents whose forebears lived under servitude. The court holds the city liable under federal law for the resulting abridgment of voting rights.
Penelope Price lives in a district redrawn to split a community whose residents trace their lineage to former slaves. The plan reduces polling access for that group. A court finds the lines abridge voting rights on account of previous condition of servitude and orders new boundaries.
Pedro Pacheco challenges a congressional map that packs voters whose families endured servitude into one district. The legislature offers only administrative reasons. The court invalidates the map because race and prior servitude motivated the lines.
Parker Phillips wins an election but faces exclusion from the House after opponents cite his family's history of servitude. The House refuses to seat him. A court holds that the exclusion violates the Fifteenth Amendment and orders the member seated.
A plaintiff must demonstrate that state action denied or abridged the right to vote and that the action was taken because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Direct evidence such as official records acknowledging the racial or historical-servitude impact satisfies the intent requirement. Disparate impact alone does not suffice without proof of discriminatory purpose.
Supporting sources
…by reason of the commands of the Constitution there are several qualifications that a State may not require. Race, color, or previous condition of servitude is an impermissible standard by reason of the Fifteenth Amendment, and that alone is sufficient to explain Gomillion v. Lightfoot , 364 U. S. 339. See Taper, Gomillion versus Lightfoot…
…. . wherein it appears that the sole question . . . arises out of denial of the right to vote . . . on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude." However, the Act specifically excludes suits concerning the office of Congressman. Respondents maintain that this exclusion demonstrates Congress' intention to prohibit federal courts…
…citizens of the United States to vote" no longer would be "denied or abridged . . . by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." U. S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 1. But "[a] number of states . . . refused to take no for an answer and continued to circumvent the fifteenth
…for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
…and laws of the United States, or to deter him or punish him for exercising such right, or by reason of his race, color, or
Yes, when the rule is adopted with awareness of the disparate effect on those groups and the decision proceeds anyway. Council records or internal memos noting the impact on communities tied to prior servitude supply evidence of purpose. A legitimate nonracial justification does not save the rule once racial motivation is shown.
Supporting sources
Congress may enact appropriate legislation that removes race-linked barriers to voting, including requirements that large agricultural employers provide paid leave and host mobile polling sites. The statute must be adapted to the mischief of depressed turnout traceable to prior conditions of servitude. Overbroad rules that regulate core employment conditions without sufficient tailoring exceed the enforcement power.
Supporting sources
Yes, when officials remove kiosks from inner-city hubs after learning they register large numbers of Black and Latino voters and relocate them to predominantly white suburban sites. The action intentionally burdens registration opportunities on account of race and prior servitude. The Fifteenth Amendment forbids such purposeful abridgment even if the rule is framed in neutral terms.
Supporting sources