article-iv

The Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution is generally known as the Guarantee Clause because it guarantees a republican form of government, generally known to be a government run by the people through elections. The clause also ensures the federal government’s protection of states against foreign invasion or internal insurrection, but this is not its primary function as this power is already conferred elsewhere in the Constitution.

Crucially, the guarantee of a republican form of government is commonly understood to require majority rule for all individual states. This correlation between a republican government and majority rule is expressed in Federalist No. 57, which says that “[t]he elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government”, indicating that majority rule is a necessary component of any form of republican government. Hence, this clause limits the type of government a state may have by preventing any state from imposing any type of monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even through a majority vote. Instead, the Guarantee Clause requires a government created by majority election. 

Although the clause requires each state to have a republican form of government, it importantly does not speak to the details of that government, explicitly leaving state legislatures to decide voting qualifications (Article I, Sections 2 & 4). The Guarantee Clause was created because delegates of the Constitutional Convention feared a monarchy arising in a particular state and establishing tyranny over the entire US.

However, the Framers’ decision to leave the voting qualifications up to the states has resulted in considerable debate over whether or not the federal government has consistently guaranteed majority rule in the states. Some legal scholars believe that the US’s acceptance of the disenfranchisement of African Americans in former Confederate states after Reconstruction was a failure to uphold the Guarantee Clause. After the Civil War, African Americans were a majority of the population in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, and 40 percent or more in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia. However, African Americans were systematically disenfranchised, particularly in places where they were majorities.

The tension of balancing minority rule while maintaining a republican form of government was on display in the 1896 Mississippi Supreme Court case, Ratliff v. Beale. In this case, the court explained that after the civil war, Mississippi’s government was in a period in which the government was controlled primarily by recently enfranchised Blacks, and then, through a white uprising, moved into being controlled and administered by the white minority overseeing a Black majority. In this case, the court attempts to justify this contradictory governmental structure by denouncing the African Americans as “unfitted by educational experience for the responsibility thrust upon [them].”

Though states are allowed to change voting qualifications by the Constitution, some legal historians believe that the Guarantee Clause does not allow states to instate minority rule, making the disenfranchisement of African Americans unconstitutional. 

I would advocate for an amendment to the Guarantee Clause to make it more robust and direct. As this clause has not been particularly debated within the Supreme Court, my amendment would aim to improve the effectiveness of the Guarantee Clause rather than absolve states concerns. I would amend the clause to clarify the criteria for what constitutes a “republican form of government” and provide more guidance on the powers and limitations of the federal government in guaranteeing and maintaining republican government in states. This amendment would prevent cases like Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon (1912) from succeeding in permitting various forms of direct democracy permitted by state law.

The Supreme Court refused to invalidate these governments on the grounds that they did not violate the Guarantee Clause. A more precise amendment would make these distinctions more clear. As well as changing the rulings on these types of cases, a clarified version of the Guarantee Clause would have perhaps limited or even prevented the systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans in former Confederate states after the Civil War. The disenfranchisement of African Americans after the Civil War had long-lasting consequences, perpetuating racial inequality, political exclusion, economic disadvantages, and systemic racism in the United States. 

Article IV: The Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

The Guarantee Clause (Article IV) responds to and prevents oppressive types of governments like monarchies. The Guarantee Clause reflects the framers’ aim to ensure democratic principles in the United States and maintain a representative government in each state. The Guarantee Clause states that every state must have a republican form of government. This ensures that no state inflicts a monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or stratocracy. The clause does not detail the conditions of the republican government (specifically regarding voting requirements), but it does guarantee federal protection to all states from foreign invasions and domestic violence. 

Some scholars interpret this clause as a finite check on the federal government’s interference with the states’ autonomy and, specifically, enabled each state to set appropriate requirements for state and local elections. Others interpret this provision to explain that the federal government can interfere with states’ voting requirements if the conditions disenfranchise part of their population. Scholars argue that post Reconstruction Era, specifically in places where African American’s made up at least 40% of the population, the Guarantee Clause was not upheld, disenfranchising African Americans.    

Texas v. White (1891) provides some context for this interpretation, as the ruling dictated that the newly freed African Americans would become part of the people; thus, they were included in the republic and entitled to vote. Subsequently, Chin utilizes Ratliff v. Beale, which explained how and why Mississippi disenfranchised African Americans.

They declared that the newly enfranchised race (who were greater in numbers) lacked the intelligence and governmental instinct to complete these public services. This acknowledges Mississippi’s “problem” because African Americans comprised most of the population. Furthermore, the elected government personnel would not reflect who the white people desired to hold power in the state. By claiming that Black people did not have sufficient intelligence, the Mississippi Constitutional Convention addressed this problem by creating literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent African Americans from voting.

With these two cases in mind, African Americans, who made up the majority of the population, did not vote; thus, allowing Mississippi and other former Confederate states to run on the minority vote. Finally, in United States v. Mississippi (1965), the United States acknowledges the systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans and, ergo, states running on the minority vote.

The Supreme Court case Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) ruled that Congress could change the age requirement only for federal elections, not state or local ones, as it was beyond Congress’s authority. This ruling supports interpretations regarding states’ autonomy as it prevented the federal government from impeding Oregon’s rights.

Although the 24th Amendment (1964) abolished literacy tests and polling taxes, Chin’s claim extrapolates to current forms of disenfranchisement like gerrymandering. It provokes readers to question if the federal government’s allowance of states’ gerrymandering violates the Guarantee Clause. The Guarantee Clause reflects Lockean ideas of popular sovereignty in that each state runs on a republican form of government where the people have control through elections. Similarly, the provision incorporates Rousseau’s idea of the general will, as the clause guarantees that states govern according to the majority vote.

Article IV – Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

The Guarantee Clause, Article IV Section IV, explains that the United States requires every state to have a republican form of government, meaning elective government and therefore majority rule. The clause also ensures each state will be federally protected against invasions and domestic unrest or violence. The Guarantee Clause was a response to the country’s recent history. Newly independent from the monarchy, the Constitution framers saw guaranteeing majority rule as crucial to protecting the country from returning to a monarchy or establishing a dictatorship or military rule. In addition, federal protection against invasions was also in mind after the American Revolution. Federal protection against domestic unrest or violence is seen as a direct response to Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-1787 when Massachusetts farmers led an armed uprising, and Congress was unable to deploy troops from other states to stop them. These recent events likely influenced the drafters of the Constitution to include these protections as a “guarantee.” 

Matters of debate concerning the Guarantee Clause center around the tension between a federal guarantee of majority rule and state autonomy to govern themselves. For instance, in the case, Oregon v. Mitchell in 1970, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government was limited to setting a minimum voting age for federal elections only. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment overturned this case, setting a minimum age of 18 across all elections, state and federal. Similarly, Amendments, XV, XIX, and XXIV declare that state elections may not discriminate by race or sex, or charge poll taxes, respectively. Another debate is related to the disenfranchisement of African Americans during Reconstruction. After the Civil War, African Americans were the majority in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, which did not allow them to vote. This disenfranchisement was a violation of the Guarantee Clause as majority rule was obstructed. While the Guarantee Clause obligates the federal government to step in, Congress does not have authority to police state elections. Similarly, the question of whether the Guarantee Clause should protect against voter suppression is also a matter of state versus federal authority. Voter suppression undermines the fundamental principles of representative democracy by limiting access to the ballot. It can be argued that the Guarantee Clause should include protecting citizens’ rights to vote freely and without discrimination. Dictating how polls are run in state elections, however, could be considered infringing on state autonomy.

In the debate concerning federal protection against voter suppression, I find the argument that guaranteeing a republican form of government for states means guaranteeing protection against voter suppression to be most persuasive. Federally protecting voters is difficult, however, as it can be considered encroaching on state autonomy. Federally standardizing the polling process across states would protect against voter suppression but takes away from states’ autonomy to run their own elections. Aside from this issue, having different state polling processes protects state elections from fraud or external interference as it makes elections harder to systematically hack. The debates surrounding the Guarantee Clause capture the tension in balancing federal and state power.