DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965 | Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1091

Transcribe
Translate

Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965

Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1091

1964]     STATE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES     1091

All of these are evils that the legislature has a right to deal with under its general police powers. As a result, the court held that a statute barring discrimination on the basis of "race, creed, color, or national origin" in the renting or leasing of defined housing accommodations was constitutional. It was rationally related to the thwarting of evils the state could seek to avoid, and the "means used to implement [these] permissible statutory objectives" were reasonable.94
   The courts have been similarly inclined when faced with due process objections to statutes proscribing discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background. Such provisions are clearly within the competence of the state and, consequently, do not deprive affected individuals of their liberty or property without due process.95 As the United States Supreme Court has noted, there is "no constitutional basis for the contention that a state cannot protect workers from exclusion solely on the basis of race, color or creed ...."96 This is because "a State may choose to put its authority behind one of the cherished aims of American feeling by forbidding indulgence in racial or religious prejudice to another's hurt. To use the Fourteenth Amendment as a sword against such State power would stultify that Amendment."97
_________________________
94 Id. at 395, 182 N.E.2d 600. Aside from its reliance on prior decisions of other courts holding employment, public accommodations, and housing statutes constitutional, the court rested heavily on those cases finding rent control a constitutional exercise of the state's police powers. See case cited id. at 396-97, 182 N.E.2d at 601.
95 Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945) (statute barring unions from discriminating is constitutional); James v. Marinship Corp., 25 Cal. 2d 721, 155 P.2d 329 (1944) (same); City of Highland Park v. Fair Employment Practices Comm'n, 364 Mich. 508, 111 N.W.2d 797 (1961) (no due process violation); Holland v. Edwards, 307 N.Y. 38, 119 N.E.2d 581 (1954) (constitutionality not questioned); Ross v. Arbury, 206 Misc. 74, 133 N.6.S.2d 62 (Sup. Ct. 1954) (constitutionality not questioned). On the clear constitutionality of state statutes outlawing discrimination by employers, labor unions, and employment agencies under the police powers of the sate, see Hearings on S. 101 and S. 459 Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. (1945); Dublirer, Legislation Outlawing Racial Discrimination in Employment, 5 LAW. GUILD REV. 101 (1945); Hunt, The Proposed Fair Employment Practice Act--Facts and Fallacies, 32 VA. L. REV. 1 (1945); Mittenthal, The Michigan Fair Employment Practices Act, 35 MICH. SBJ., May 1956, at 41; Waite, Constitutionality of the Proposed Minnesota Fair Employment Practices Act, 32 MINN. L. REV. 349 (1948); NOTE, 74 HARV. L. REV. 526, 586-87 (1961); NOTE, 26 TEMP. L.Q. 515, 536-37 (1963).
96 Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 94 (1945). In this case the court held that a statute forbidding discrimination in the admission of members to a labor union did not deny union members any of their liberties without due process.
97 Id. at 98. See Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 41 (1948), where Mr. Justice Douglas remarked, "[T]he police power of a State under our

Saving...

1964] STATE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES 1091 All of these are evils that the legislature has a right to deal with under its general police powers. As a result, the court held that a statute barring discrimination on the basis of "race, creed, color, or national origin" in the renting or leasing of defined housing accommodations was constitutional. It was rationally related to the thwarting of evils the state could seek to avoid, and the "means used to implement [these] permissible statutory objectives" were reasonable.94 The courts have been similarly inclined when faced with due process objections to statutes proscribing discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background. Such provisions are clearly within the competence of the state and, consequently, do not deprive affected individuals of their liberty or property without due process.95 As the United States Supreme Court has noted, there is "no constitutional basis for the contention that a state cannot protect workers from exclusion solely on the basis of race, color or creed ...."96 This is because "a State may choose to put its authority behind one of the cherished aims of American feeling by forbidding indulgence in racial or religious prejudice to another's hurt. To use the Fourteenth Amendment as a sword against such State power would stultify that Amendment."97 _________________________ 94 Id. at 395, 182 N.E.2d 600. Aside from its reliance on prior decisions of other courts holding employment, public accommodations, and housing statutes constitutional, the court rested heavily on those cases finding rent control a constitutional exercise of the state's police powers. See case cited id. at 396-97, 182 N.E.2d at 601. 95 Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945) (statute barring unions from discriminating is constitutional); James v. Marinship Corp., 25 Cal. 2d 721, 155 P.2d 329 (1944) (same); City of Highland Park v. Fair Employment Practices Comm'n, 364 Mich. 508, 111 N.W.2d 797 (1961) (no due process violation); Holland v. Edwards, 307 N.Y. 38, 119 N.E.2d 581 (1954) (constitutionality not questioned); Ross v. Arbury, 206 Misc. 74, 133 N.6.S.2d 62 (Sup. Ct. 1954) (constitutionality not questioned). On the clear constitutionality of state statutes outlawing discrimination by employers, labor unions, and employment agencies under the police powers of the sate, see Hearings on S. 101 and S. 459 Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. (1945); Dublirer, Legislation Outlawing Racial Discrimination in Employment, 5 LAW. GUILD REV. 101 (1945); Hunt, The Proposed Fair Employment Practice Act--Facts and Fallacies, 32 VA. L. REV. 1 (1945); Mittenthal, The Michigan Fair Employment Practices Act, 35 MICH. SBJ., May 1956, at 41; Waite, Constitutionality of the Proposed Minnesota Fair Employment Practices Act, 32 MINN. L. REV. 349 (1948); NOTE, 74 HARV. L. REV. 526, 586-87 (1961); NOTE, 26 TEMP. L.Q. 515, 536-37 (1963). 96 Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 94 (1945). In this case the court held that a statute forbidding discrimination in the admission of members to a labor union did not deny union members any of their liberties without due process. 97 Id. at 98. See Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 41 (1948), where Mr. Justice Douglas remarked, "[T]he police power of a State under our