Anderson v. Martin
206 F. Supp. 700
E.D. La.
1962
Check Treatment

*1 Virgin fer Islands under this case to the Dupuy H. ANDERSON and Acie J. de Section. The memorandum Belton, Complainants, point fendant cases which on this cites by were not the court before considered MARTIN, Jr., its Wade and sets forth O. decision was made Defendant. persuade reasons the court which would Civ. No. change ruling part its as this United States District Court April order of 1962.17 D. Louisiana. appreciating assistance While June for defend which the York counsel New given filed its brief ant has the court May 24, disre court cannot this Congress gard plain used as words of (28 Chapter U.S.C.A. 28of U.S.C.A. pp. 144), referred at as §§ guise under the Document reaching alleged purpose or an May (see pp. brief filed 6-8 of the 1962) clearly ap as which is stated plying to this Defendant’s situation.18 remedy Congress, is within the

rather than within the District that of Rehearing reargument Court. point purpose.

this would no useful serve Wisdom, Cir.quit Judge, dissented. Application Under Certification 1292(b) § 28 U.S.C.A. asks, Petition

The instant alternative, if the court adheres 24, 1962, April certifica order its 1292(b) by 28 U.S.C.A.

tion authorized § granted. has been This alternative to amend the

treated as a motion order granted 24, 1962, April and will be Judge said, Goodrich has since Circuit

under similar circumstances: “If

Court is incorrect the view here ex-

pressed, it would unfortunate to have go through parties a trial on the mer- and then have the case thrown out be- forum

cause the was considered an in-

convenient one.” See Kontos v. The S. C., Sophie F.Supp. (E.D. S. Pa.1960), (3rd aff’d. 288 F.2d 437 Cir.

1961). analysis 17. See cited of cases defend- called Dawson’s attention when plaintiff’s (Docu- language quoted page ant Memorandum he used the at 63). Tyrill ment No. of this v. Alcoa brief from Steam- ship F.Supp. 853, Company, (S.D. showing N.Y.1958). Cunningham, is no There the relevant Russell provisions F.Supp. (D.Guam page 1961), the Judicial Code cited at language Longshoremen present brief, Juneau 6 of this does sit- Spruce Corp., 237, 241, court, uation now since (1942), 96 L.Ed. 275 referred concern Districts §§ U.S.C.A. 81-131 pp. purport 3-5 of Document No. were all “district do not to list courts.”

requires designation of “Cau- the casian”, “Negro”, specified or “other placed race” be the on ballot after the name of each candidate. Negro Plaintiffs are two candidates Bell, Murphy W. Jones, A. Johnnie Rouge for the schoolboard in East Baton Avery, Samu- Bell, P. Leonard Bruce Parish, They of State Louisiana. chal- La., L. Rouge, Wilmon Dickens, Baton el lenge constitutionality the of this stat- Miss., Jack Pascagoula, Richardson, First, ute under the Fourteenth and III, Nabrit, New Greenberg, M. James Fifteenth the Amendments to United Meltsner, York New City, Michael York injunc- request States Constitution and complainants. counsel, City, for of Secretary tive relief prior the of State July 28, 1962, to the Atty. Democratic Gremillion, of Gen. P. F. Jack primary. Buck, First Asst.

Louisiana, Carroll Fuller, Asst. Harry Second Atty. Gen., temporary The denied a District Jr., Airhart, Asst. Teddy Atty. Gen., W. restraining three- order and thereafter a Special McFerrin, Atty. Gen., Thomas W. pursuant judge to 28 convened court was Counsel, for defendant. his Defendant filed U.S.C.A. § together motion to dis answer with a Judge, and WISDOM, Circuit Before jurisdiction in on miss for lack of Judges. ELLIS, District and WEST hearing. day The re jurisdiction and cessed to consider having Judge. WEST, District jurisdict had concluded that it Legislature en Louisiana 1960 the ion,2 hear the to the court reconvened Secretary legislation requiring the acted stipulated parties that the merits. designation over place racial to of State plaintiffs’ com as stated facts were every on the ballot candidate general name of argument, proceeded plaint; to Un election.1 primary or was submitted. and place the candidate der the statute designation his grasp important on and racial At outset it to his name candidacy par relationships the Secre and of of fundamental certificate tary information office of uses Plaintiffs candidates for State ties. designation rights they preparing arise of ballot. advance and out Secondly, Statute applies the statute in candidates. that status. race, specified 18:1174.1, Act 538 of informa- or 1. LSA-R.S. Sec. other applica- obtained from tion shall be Designation of race or for or notifications declarations “Sec. 1174.1 tions candidacy paper ballots —A. certificates nom- on or from the papers, Every application or notification as the case ination or nomination every candidacy, certifi- be. declaration of every any nomination “C. the ballots be used in cate nomination general any primary, primary, special paper or local filed in state or local Secretary general special elec- election election of State shall parentheses printed shall show for each within in this state cause tive office () candidate, whether such the name of each named therein candidate beside race, candidate, Caucasian the race of the whether Cau is of the specified specified casian, Negro, Negro or other race or from, party committees, information shall be obtained “B. Chairmen presidents committees, described in the documents Subsection party A executive or B of this Section. The racial supervisors des of election or boards ignation print on the ballots shall be in required by persons person or law to cer- print the same size in the names Secretary tify of State the names candidates on the ballots.” placed on of candidates the ballots to be shown properly shall cause certifica- 2. Jurisdiction invoked under 1343(3), each tion whether candidate named there- §§ U.S.C.A. and 42 §§ Negro 1971(a), in is of the Caucasian race U.S.C.A. question applies recognition state statute Even with the Fif that the requires have all. While it teenth Amendment created affirmative ballot, re rights,7 gone race disclosed beyond court has not quires Caucasian, protection Mon the same of the per of the voter se. Like *3 variety golian, garden wise, urged and so on. The Key,8 McDonald v. which is Negro recognized controlling, discrimination between white us as that the right Moreover, is involved. to vote is not involved in a statute adopts dis “sophisticated” designations method of racial on the bal might give pause.3 lot. crimination that us Moreover the facts of the ease do suggest question consti not The sole is whether the a restriction on rights. rights tutional vagaries The unfathomable abridged operate of all just like that voter when his freely with this candidates, bal statute as is disclosed on without it. This statute mere ly pursuant lot to state statute. contributes to a more informed elector ate. ly event, plaintiffs do not valid rights Precisely constitutional right assert a under the Fifteenth difficult plaintiffs is somewhat advance Amendment. Certainly Fifteenth to determine. gives plaintiffs comfort. Amendment creeping tendency, There is a ap Amendment Fourteenth While the parently dealing when problems with in the area rights than protects broader and Fourteenth Amendm First drafters originally conceived those ents,9 to outlaw State statutes on the Due Equal Protection due to the grounds rightness of their lack of Amend clauses,4 Fifteenth Process wisdom, misapprehen while under the is 6It protection.5 in its ment direct is only constitutionality sion their is right noth vote, exclusively being Supreme tested. Court This ing terms, protected. which, more, in us, once, may has told more than we in interpreted Surely be the statute respect do.10 With due for our federal way protect the fundamental as to ism, the court must examine the Consti con in whatever of the franchise Supreme tution and the various lines of seeks on discrimination text bent a State Court decisions and determine if the the Su has But no time it.6 to cast State action contravenes Constitu protection of expanded preme Court tion. examination must be liberal so beyond the franchise. substance; the amendment as not exalt form over 268, Wilson, (10 1955). 59 S. 307 3. U.S. See Lane v. 8. 224 F.2d 608 Cir. 872, 1281. L.Ed. Ct. 83 9. So that- the matter not confuse the Education, U.S. 4. 347 Brown v. Board let it issue noted the First Amend- Bolling 873; 686, 483, wholly inapplicable 98 L.Ed. 74 S.Ct. ment this case 497, 693, Sharpe, dealing powers 98 74 S.Ct. U.S. 347 as it does with Congress. rights 884. L.Ed. enumerated in the First Amendment which are included Amend., XV. 5. U.S.Constitution within the Fourteenth Amendment right of citizens “Section 1. plaintiff relies. Gitlow v. New denied to vote shall not be United States York, 652, 625, 268 U.S. 45 S.Ct. 69 L. abridged the United States or 1138. Ed. previ- color, account State on Carpenters Union, of servitude.” ous condition and Joiners etc. v. Cafe, 722, 807, Hitter’s 315 U.S. 62 S.Ct. Adams, Terry 461, 345 U.S. 73 S.Ct. 1143; Empire Giboney 86 L.Ed. Stor- 1152; 809, United States v. 97 L.Ed. age Co., & Ice 69 U.S. S.Ct. Classic, 61 S.Ct. 313 U.S. 834; International Brotherhood L.Ed. Teamsters, Hanke, etc., Union v. 7. Ex Yarborough, parte 995; U.S. Building L.Ed. Employees, Guinn S.Ct. States, United Service etc. v. Gaz- zam, 238 U.S. L. 339 U.S. 94 L. Ed. 1340. Ed. 1045. circumspect disposed accord This court it must be so as to to create a brightest light just powers.11 pub- shield states their public lic examination of candidates for Four Plaintiffs’ reliance on office. suggests lines teenth Amendment two Bates, N. A. A. C. P. v. Court might Supreme con Court cases which recognized Alabama, Talley, that the of these trol this action. The first right anonymity abridged could right anonymity N. A. defined However, certain instances. in those Alabama, S. C. P. v. stances, the State bore the burden of case, plus Ct. 1488. This showing overriding an interest Rock, Bates Little justify partial sufficient to *4 Talley v. S.Ct. 4 L.Ed.2d abridgement right.15 of the In the case California, 4 L. S.Ct. right anonymity us the on the 559, expounded proposition Ed.2d ballot does far exist so as this exercising person that freedom of can determine. Thus this court right speech to or association had any balancing personal to since no anonymity “the if disclosure entailed placed opposite interests are in the scale likelihood a substantial restraint interest, may * * * State whatever it be. right the exercise to their We conclude that the Louisiana statute freedom Black of association.”12 Justice does not violate the Fourteenth Amend Talley California, supra v. on that score. ment 539, explained S.Ct. at that reason “the holdings appears second line of cases which these identifica was that applicable might reprisal “state per tion action” and fear of deter cases Shelley fectly their peaceful matrix in public v. Kraem- mat discussions of er, importance.” 334 U.S. 68 S.Ct. ters of Jackson, and Barrows v. 346 U.S. pur may assumed, present S.Ct. It is poses, plaintiffs that have a constitution insufficient to that state these cases are However, right seek office.13 al to distinguishable because state action length breadth of matter what case. clear in this These cases must be right, saying basis for there is no meaning read for their as well as their right to a candidate for office has facts. anonymity. P. A. A. C. The Court N. Alabama, opinion is, of the course, v. was The first McDonald case right injury subsequent to disclosure Key, supra. to a pre- While it does not fall right identity precludes to cisely identi concept, within the “state action” political fication. A candidate does not the case closest on its facts and in- it right run for lose his office dis equal protection volves the clause. There Further, his it is safe to closure of require- the Tenth Circuit found that the say polit only Negroes like name and his ment that have their race appear designated ical affiliation also on the ballot violated the ballot14, campaign. will come out in Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs at- Cir., Key, 11. “To maintain the balance of our fed- McDonald v. 13. See F.2d system, eral insofar as it is committed to regard care, our demands at once zealous guarantees Rights Bill of for the 14. LSA-R.S. 18:671. recognition powers belong- and due adjustment ing to Such an re- the states. also International 15. See Brotherhood quires judgment, precise Teamsters, etc., Hanke, austere and a Union 339 U.S. summary help 470, 474, result to avoid AYagon Drivers, Teamsters, misconstruction.” Milk International Brotherhood of 287, 297, Meadowmoor, Vogt, Inc., etc. etc. v. 85 L.Ed. 836. Alabama, supra, 12. N. A. A. C. P. U.S. at 78 S.Ct. at 1172. cases, tempt case than these more of this to make insofar as instant require concerned, pri- The Tenth did not is that there in it. any existed a Circuit theory actually or proven constitutional intricate act of discrimination deprivation privy. the Oklahoma strike down was Either private seeking ex were treated individual was Statute. candidates Negroes neighborhood,18 clude different with- from a from all other candidates Negroes denying right good vote,19 or ..being Given

out reason shown. gone segregating terminals,21 buses,20 Court not have train those facts the need restaurants,22 golf further, it did This is not those not. courses.23 In sought case before us. cases the state Here all either enforce printed permit must state race have their discrimination it within look furth- on the ballot. Plaintiffs domain25. the Louisi Since unconstitutionality. er find ana statute does its not discriminate on face, prov the Court must ask where Shelley find in have us would Plaintiffs en discrimination lies. offer Plaintiffs progeny prin some Kraemer and proof of actual discrimination ciple from deter a state which would They them.26 ask the notice to take bal placing on the racial classifications among the *5 that discrimination electorate principle of synopsis the A of lot. brief a of this will somehow occur as result Supreme cases is in order. these Precisely how discrim statute.27 this recognized instance, Court, in first the against plaintiffs can be discov ination by private individu discrimination that clear, less how not made much ered is beyond scope the Four the of was als the the controls discrimination state the Civil Amendment under teenth Nothing through we this statute. that Rights the To this was added Cases.16 suggest cases can find in the state action proposition that discrimina undeniable statute, and a state that a court take by improper states was under tion the gos gaze seeking future, some into the Amendment. Further Fourteenth possibility ain of discrimination samer ostensibly private that Court held wholly beyond the group of individuals in en which was discrimination fact the state. discrimination control of discriminatory by state was forced it. real state must effect must be and the n “state action” under the Fourteenth find nondiscrimina record a this we nothing tory fact crucial in all Amendment.17 more. Judicial statute 18, 835, supra; Shelley Kraemer, v. 109 Boman 16. U.S. 24. v. Kraemer, Shelley supra. Co., Birmingham 68 v. Transit See 92 S.Ot. Wilmington Parking Authori- v. 25. Burton supra. Shelley Kraemer, supra; ty, v. Barrows v. 17. Jackson, U.S. a some 26. statute A classification 1586; Terry Adams, v. L.Ed. not offend basis does reasonable S.Ot. U.S. equal protection clause the Con- Wilmington Parking Authority, v. Burton practice though in results even stitution S.Ot. inequality. One who assails in some 45. carry a law must classification showing that it does not burden Shelley Kraemer, supra; v. 18. Barrows v. any basis, is but reasonable supra. rest Jackson, Morey essentially arbitrary. Doud, 354 v. Terry Adams, supra. 457, 77 1 L.Ed.2d 1485. Birmingham Compa- Boman Transit Hall on Helena 27. Plaintiffs’ reliance v. St. ny, Cir., Board, E.D.La., 280 E.2d 531. F. School Parish unavailing Supp. since is in that case Morgan, Cir., 21. Baldwin 287 F.2d 750. purpose was able determine very results, concrete from Wilmington Parking 22. Burton v. Author- easily predictable consequences. least ity, supra. do this not refer Plaintiffs resulting Hampton City Jacksonville, Cir., discrimination and do not even predictable 304 F.2d 320. results. hint at segregation practical matter, As a policy of in Oklahoma the notice of a state designation nothing omission discrim- unless actual racial on avails us proven a ballot amounted tifying iden- result to the candidate ination is as through just stat- of this himself the medium as a white man surely negro previously as a iden- found candidate would ute. We have tify “negro” himself alike. the word after treats essentially his name. The result was foregoing conclude For reasons we accomplished same result intended to be of the in violation that the statute is by the Louisiana statute. Act 538 Amendment, request Fourteenth sophisticated 1960 is somewhat more preliminary injunction denied. superficial appearance there equality WISDOM, (dissenting). of treatment. The effect is the Circuit same candidates are classified eyes Constitution, a man In the using and the State is elective a white man. He He is not man. processes furnish information and Negro. He not an Indian. stimulus for racial discrimination in identify private persons If voting booth. they Negro, have a for right officeas a imprimatur The State’s on racial dis- part to do so. it is But tinctions on the is no ballot more valid of the State to a racial business separate imprimatur than the State’s stamp on It is close to a ballot. too Courson, booths. In Anderson religious stamp. reasonable re- It has no F.Supp. the District processes. lation to electoral Georgia Court for the District of Middle When courts down statutes have struck racially segre- held that maintenance separate ordinances seat- *6 and ing gated voting places deprived Negroes of arrangements buses, separate rest- equal protection of law “in the matter rooms, separate and in state- restaurants franchise, exercise elective operated airports and ter- owned bus prerogative function and of utmost im- minals, it was because the evidence portance process government, negroes showed were restricted to intrinsically so and characteristic of the buses, dirty uncomfortable seats in rest- dignity citizenship”. rooms, poor It was because food. they sign Considering sat buses behind marked of media extent “colored”, highly entered restrooms under the today, unlikely information it is sign “colored”, could be served food that voters will confused lack only in restaurants for “colored”. of racial identification candidates on stamp Considering classification race that the ballot. the number of large Negro makes the classification invidious. parishes popula- likely tion, entirely it is that a racial principle, us cannot stamp Negro help will as it as much will distinguished hinder Key, from McDonald officein Lou- Cir., 1955, den’d, 224 F.2d cert. isiana. The vice in the law not de- Negroes. injury pendent on The vice case the had before it an placing in the law State’s is the Oklahoma statute prestige behind a of racial who is than of “candidate the White classification inconsistent with the elec- designated shall have his race processes. Justice Harlan tive parenthesis ballots after his finger many ago years on it when he said Under name.” the Oklahoma constitu “Constitution color-blind”. If tion, phrase “white race” includes is one area above there others where only members of that but mem color-blind, Constitution is the except of all other bers races respect of state action with area to the The court held that this resulted booth. ballot equality a denial treatment with Negroes respect respectfully run I who dissent. office.