Cunningham v Homma
From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
| Cunningham v Homma | |
|---|---|
.svg) |
|
| Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
| Full case name | The Collector of Voter for the Electoral District of Vancouver City and the Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia v Tomey Homma and the Attorney General for the Dominions of Canada |
| Decided | 17 December 1902 |
| Citation(s) | [1902] UKPC 60, [1903] 9 AC 151, CCS 45 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Supreme Court of British Columbia |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | The Lord Chancellor, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Davey, Lord Robertson, Lord Lindley |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | The Lord Chancellor |
Cunningham v Homma[1] is a famous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that upheld a British Columbia law that prohibited Japanese Canadians and Chinese Canadians from voting.[2]
The Council held that, although the federal government had the exclusive jurisdiction over "naturalization", the right to vote in provincial elections was not inherent for naturalized citizens, but rather had to be legislated. Thus, it was up to the municipalities to determine who could have the right to vote and could prohibit any naturalized ethnic group they chose.
See also
References
- ↑ Cunningham v. Homma [1902] UKPC 60, [1903] 9 AC 151, CCS 45 (17 December 1902), P.C. (on appeal from British Columbia)
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  |
This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
