When a "white" woman and a "Negro" man successfully sued to marry in a landmark 1948 case called Perez v. Sharp, they made California the �rst state to overturn a miscegenation statute. But despite how most historians read Perez, this victory did not center on the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, it hinged on the liminality of the woman in question-whose background was Mexican American. Although Andrea P�rez's in-between status was not discussed explicitly in the ruling opinion, it is essential to the opinion's logic. This article frames Perez within the larger history of P�rez's life and of Mexicans' racialization in California, arguing that the state's miscegenation law collapsed as early as it did because by 1948 the bureaucracy that sustained it could not manage the problem of the hybrid.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
August 2005
Research Article|
August 01 2005
Void for Vagueness
DARA ORENSTEIN
DARA ORENSTEIN
The author is a doctoral candidate in American Studies at Yale University.
Search for other works by this author on:
Pacific Historical Review (2005) 74 (3): 367–408.
Citation
DARA ORENSTEIN; Void for Vagueness. Pacific Historical Review 1 August 2005; 74 (3): 367–408. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/phr.2005.74.3.367
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Client Account
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.