Background

• In Sept. 2008, the district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Galvin to place Barr and Root on the Massachusetts ballot for the 2008 presidential election.
• In Sept. 2009, the court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs; defendant appealed to the First Circuit.
• The First Circuit, in Nov. 2010, held there was a live dispute, held equal protection did not require non-party-candidate substitutions, found the statute not unconstitutionally vague but in need of interpretive clarification, and ordered abstention under Pullman so state courts could interpret the statute before addressing federal questions.
• Although no pending state case existed, the First Circuit anticipated state court action and noted time before the next presidential election, directing this court to abstain on the void-for-vagueness claim and dismiss remaining claims without prejudice.
• On remand, this court follows Pullman abstention by staying the void-for-vagueness claim pending Massachusetts interpretive clarification, while retaining jurisdiction over the federal claim and dismissing all other claims without prejudice.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (establishes abstention when state-law questions may avoid constitutional issues)
• Harris Cnty. Comm'rs Court v. Moore, 420 U.S. 77 (1975) (describes Pullman deferral where appropriate)
• Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) (describes deferral vs. dismissal under Pullman context)
• Muskegon Theatres, Inc. v. City of Muskegon, 507 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1974) (recognizes court may retain jurisdiction while abstaining)
• Pullman Co. (generic citation for foundational doctrine), 313 U.S. 496 (1941) (see above primary Pullman citation—refers to abstention principles)