Hadnott v. Amos

1003 during period of disabili- stallments ty. if a creditor hold These cases Plaintiffs, al., M. Sallie HADNOTT et judgment' he time each

must obtain a installments, the to reach accrued wishes AMOS, Secretary of Mabel S. controversy amount is the amount al., Alabama, et judgment install- for the accrued Defendants. amount which ments and not total Civ. A. No. 2757-N. may ultimately Aetna become due. Flowers, Surety Casualty United States District & 330 Court Co. M. D. N. D. 1024 67 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed.

U.S. (1947). Oct. I find that therefore controversy not exceed amount in does

$10,000. plaintiff’s no

There is merit jurisdiction

contention that he can base clearly 12

on U.S.C. That statute jurisdiction. to venue and not

relates Bank of Co

Swift Fourth National Georgia, (M.D.

lumbus, F.Supp. 563 Ga.1962). plaintiff alleges

Finally, that this ac- arises Indian

tion under the Klamath Act, seq.,

Termination U.S.C. 564 et jurisdiction and that based

theory that the case arises under Feder- D.C., F.Supp. also See al law. broadly not “arising inter-

Federal courts have

preted phrase under.” Co., Skelly Phillips Oil Co. v. Petroleum 94 L.Ed. 1194 U.S. 70 S.Ct.

(1950); Gully Bank in v. First National

Meridian, 299 U.S. 57 S.Ct.

L.Ed. held This circuit has action under the arises laws only

the United if it involves a States validity,

determination of the construc- law,

tion or effect of result depends on that determina- action Quinault

tion. of Indians v. Gal- Tribe 1966); (9th lagher, Cir. 368 F.2d 648 Theatres v. United West South Side (9th Corp., 178 F.2d 648

Coast Theatres 1949). Cir. here occurred

Whether breach stipulation

will be determined Although trust was law. and State pursuant et to 25

created U.S.C.

seq., statute is immaterial

controversy. motion to dismiss Defendant’s jurisdiction granted.

want of Morgan, Jr., F. and Reber Charles Billings-

Boult, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Orzell Birmingham, ley, L. Jr., and Melvin Ala. Norton, York New Wulf and Eleanor City, plaintiffs. Gallion, Gen., Atty.

MacDonald Alabama, Bookout, Deputy John G. Gen., McQueen, Atty. Leslie William N. Hall, Atty. Madison, and Gordon Asst. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., L. Drew and Redden, Rogers, Howard, Redden & Mills, Atty. Birmingham, Ala., Sp. Asst. Gen., for defendants. Levine, Fulford, Fulford,

R. Clifford Gwaltney Pope, Birmingham, Ala., & for intervening defendant, F. Maul- Edward din, as Chairman of Alabama Citizens unincorpor- for Humphrey-Muskie, association, ated himself behalf of persons similarly and all other situated and interested. GODBOLD, Judge,

Before Circuit PITTMAN, JOHNSON District Judges.

PER CURIAM: places This suit is an effort secure for more than 100 candidates of Party National Democratic of Alabama (NDPA) on the ballots to be used election to held in Ala- bama on November 1968. Numerous provisions of the election laws of Ala- challenged bama are as unconstitutional faces, applied on their in an unconstitu- manner, tional and in conflict Voting Rights Act of 42 U.S.C.A. 1973-73p. three-judge A district court has been convened under 28 U.S.C.A. given § 2281. of suit has been .Notice Attorney to the General and Governor 2284(2). 28 U.S.C.A. § properly plaintiffs hold that We action, bring this suit as a class Grouby A. the defendant Edward represents properly defendants a class of Judges composed of all of the plaintiffs’ in Alabama. The counties to file a amendment motion second granted. complaint their problems To minimize difficult controversy public creates which present acquired jurisdiction candidates, case officials, and to voters sought injunction being as reason of an protect interests of all insofar against temporary- enforcement of statutes possible court entered a 18, 1968, September restraining substantial federal constitutional order on grounds, jurisdiction directing acquired effect, over we is still which case, by the all the claims in the state and certified raised candidates be NDPA candidates, in- federal.3 But does not follow that concerning Pro- because a constiutional issue cluded as candidates voting properly presented bate, particular appropriate elections sought.1 necessarily to the sub- court should decide The case now every applica- contention and issue of a decision mitted us injunction temporary federal nature constitutional which all tion parties may have the raise the election. the for a final decree. We about merits many deposi- court, discretion, pleadings, exercising This considered the de- witnesses, only of docu- cides the tions voluminous substantial concern- issues ments, evidence, ing and other numerous the Constitution of the United States. arguments by briefs, Gibbs, and oral counsel. United Mine Workers v. 383 U.S. 715, 1130, 86 S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

1 Corrupt 2. court, through acting Practices Law a This single judge, through judges, and three Plaintiffs attack unconstitutional protect has not been reluctant to con on applied the face and as to them and voting rights relating provisions stitutional to the their the class of Tit. 17 §§ 274-275, (1958).4 process.2 Ala.Code three-judge These sec- Once this court expend, printed by receive, 4. “§ 1. Committee In Alabama 274. to ballots are each money county county only, audit and disburse for or con- use in that under funds supervision Judge days county the of tributed. —Within five announcement of of after printed candidacy any Probate. his He must cause to be for office, upon each the ballot all candi- candidate for a state office names put secretary in shall file dates who have and nomination with the been of state and county each certified to him not less than 60 candidate for a office or the days previous day representatives state house of with to of election. shall file persons judge probate county, of nomination Certificates state-wide, be or an entire each candidate voted for a circuit or district judicial including Congressional office, senate, district, circuit or the state shall district, any judge probate or federal file with senatorial state of each office, county must be filed with the which is embodied said circuit State, district, showing or who certifies to statement name the than five respective of not Probate of affect- less than counties one nor more persons audit, receive, expend, nominees and the ed the names of such elected to moneys contributed, for which nominated. Certificates and nated, all offices of nomination for offices disburse do- any way subscribed, to be voted or in furnished aiding directly single county purpose filed or are raised for the or county. Judge promoting Ala. the nomination or election §,§145,168. candidate, together (1958), IT, such Code Tit. with a written acceptance persons consent of such g., 252 F. 2. E. v. United States candidate, committee, any act as such but (three-judge Supp. (M.D.Ala.1966) 95 so, may if as the fit. he sees to do declare himself F.Supp. court); Baggett, v. 247 Sims person purpose. chosen for such court); (three-judge (M.D.Ala.1965) 96 required If F.Supp. statement herein shall Parker, 511 236 States v. United postmarked (M.D.Ala. 1964); v. Cart at States have been United United (M.D.Ala.1964); F.Supp. wright, post midnight 230 873 States office not later than F.Supp. Penton, 193 123 212 v. States United day of the fifth after announcement Wilson, (M.D.Ala.1962); Sellers candidacy, of his the candidate shall be (M.D.Ala.1954). F.Supp. 917 require- complied deemed have filing Growers, such g., as to ments this section & Avocado Lime 3. E. Florida days 73, five after an- Jacobsen, S.Ct. statement within 80 362 U.S. Inc. candidacy. (1960). nouncement of his Such com- 568, 4 L.Ed.2d 568

1007 may comprehensive able state seek means which part of tions are legitimate end.5 achieve a Corrupt enacted Law Practices legislature Section Alabama disqualifi claim Plaintiffs amounts the maximum 272 establishes excessively cation of the candidate is an spend that various 274, penalty harsh violation § requires their Section races. unconstitutional de therefore an behalf made for contributions privation law, process due because committee to the be made the candidate available, less drastic alternatives are Under named under Madison, citing City of Dean Milk Co. v. must, days after within Committee 95 L.Ed. 329 U.S. S.Ct. election, (with the file (1951); Verner, Sherbert v. 374 U.S. Judge Probate, depending or the (1963) 10 L.Ed.2d 965 S.Ct. sought) itemized sworn on the office Connecticut, Griswold 381 U.S. expenditures contribu- statement of 85 S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d public docu- tions. 281 these Under § provides Section 275 two ments, open inspection citizens. penalties when the fails candidate post-election made If statement designate his finance committee —the may not be the candidate certified corrupt practice, failure is declared though other- or elected even nominated go his “shall upon name allowed Tit. wise successful. guilty corrupt the ballot.” One of a practice guilty legitimate is of a inter misdemeanor and The state has must fined seeking supervise spending in be not more in than and est $500 may campaigns. imprisoned also be political no illu at hard labor We have 17, Corrupt not more than six months. Tit. Practices Law sions about Disqualification proliferation of working perfectly. The of the candidate readily is a by direct and other than named available means committees those securing politi compliance. of remedy of But the is a fact candidate himself refusing of requirement place the candidate cal life But the in Alabama. employed designate repeatedly.6 ballot has been himself candidate accept argument plain- We cannot appropriate committee and reason- is designated by appoint mittees candidates. one of their number Failure mittees shall appointment treasurer, make the declaration who shall receive act as by any moneys by or selection com- herein all said candidate as disburse received required corrupt prac- mittee; keep is declared to be a shall detailed account be tice, payments receipts, and in The addition the liabilities. name of such failing so candidate shall have not be allowed said or its treasurer committee shall go upon moneys custody at all con- the ballot election. such exclusive any (1915, p. 250.)” donated, subscribed, tributed, or of the on behalf wise furnished for or Bottomly, Corrupt S., 5. In John Practices committee, represented by said candidate Campaigns, in Political 30 Boston Univ. proper the same shall disburse (1950) corrupt practices L.Rev. 331 created If vacancies be vouchers. statutes of most tab- of the were states resignation cause other or death or ulated. At authorized time 36 states committees, candidate said on said place non-criminal sanctions of denial of a remaining vacancies, mem- or the fill such disqualification on the ballot or or complete discharge bers shall office, of the denial various violations if required committee said duties corrupt practices their statutes. vacancy No had not been created. such a authorizing Eleven states are shown as shall or election nomination candidate for place denial of a on the ballot. indirectly directly any money expend g., except Lee, 6. E. Herndon v. 281 Ala. 199 or election aid of his nomination (1967); Phillips, desig- So.2d Jones 279 contributing committee (1966); 250; p. (1915, Ala. Owens So.2d by him as aforesaid. nated 1959.) Heartsill, So.2d 382 279 Ala. p. appvd. Nov. Thomas, (1966); acting cf. com- McCutcheon own Candidate “§ 275. Rep. (1954); his Ala. 75 So.2d 649 person act as shall Any who mittee..— Atty.Gen. Ala., 1934-36, p. governed be shall own committee relating corn- provisions article of this penalty tiffs that requirement filing a criminal is an al- appoint [the just ternative so much more desirable that ment of a finance was committee] remedy part renders unconstitutional qualification as much a of his aas ballot, place denial or that paying candidate as was the of his alone qualification proper is even an effective alternative. fee to the chairman undesirability party.” of criminal Phillips, action as his Jones v. remedy present the sole is shown So.2d at 380. great majority case. The of the NDPA de When relatively candidates seek offices, minor local certify Judges clined to to the time, for the first NDPA candidates who filed nominations and are claimed to most be instances in her office she did not assert failure pro- unfamiliar with election laws and of comply with the Act as one of her required them, cedures and in in- some motivations. Her motivation irrele stances unaware of their nominations. judicial vant to a determination suggestion that all of them are to whether Act on its constitutional exposed to criminal action face. tenable. The court holds that 274-275 §§ accept Nor can we the contention are not unconstitutional on their faces. constitutionally impermissible it is penalty to enforce the of denial of a application No unconstitutional place on the ballot unless is Corrupt the candidate Practices en- Law selective guilty of fraud or intent to defraud. proved respect forcement has been with purpose This misconceives the candidates, filings effect to the NDPA requirements, of the finance committee filings provide designated publicly which for a of Probate. Selective enforce- agency through whose hands funds are back-dating ment could arise from com- received, designations disbursed and audited and mittee filed late or from open whose statements are filed and Secretary failure Judges the of State or the public inspection. emphasis The deny is of Probate to certification spotlight the public of place available scrut or a on the to ballot candidates iny.7 plaintiffs’ other the than class who either did not file or filed late. As to the uniformly, though The Alabama courts former, any prac- there no evidence of reluctantly, at times have enforced vio tice Secretary in the offices the of of mandatory lations of 274-275 if §§ as any Judges State or one of the 67 of proceeding prior raised in a direct to filings accepting Probate of late as time- the Lee, supra; election. Herndon v. ly. The evidence toas the Phillips, supra; Jones v. Owens v. Heart filing carefully State that dates are sill, supra; Cuninghame, cf. Garrett v. late, filings watched accepted. not (1924), though Ala. 100 So. 845 only directory if raised after the election. As application to the latter —selective Section 275 has penalty not been amended since are asked to infer —we its enactment in 1915. Both sections that there is enforcement with an un- were reenacted in 1940. Section 274 even hand the fact that in this law- filing was clarify amended in 1959 to suit the defendant state officers assert designations committee that plaintiff members of the class are legislature for the state and the place measure not entitled to a on the ballot be- five-day period. ment of comply The cause of manda failure to with 274. § tory penalty changed. not was This “This misconceives both the duties 7. Phillips, In supra, personally corrupt Jones generic the Alabama in tlie sense Supreme Accord, Vickery evil or “corrupt” fraudulent. Court noted that King, 281 Ala. Corrupt So.2d 148 used in Act did Practices not comply brand the candidate who Phillips, failed to See Jones v. 185 So.2d at 381. practice, or plaintiffs seek is no consistent evidence of The facts. court and otherwise, requir- time this is the first injunctive order or that an affirmative Corrupt in put on the ballot. Practices Law has been ing be their class that county at the voked at either level.10a that relief state or prerequisite to As a they We cannot must show that infer selective enforcement hands of the court under these circumstances. cannot on the ballot. We they qualified to be are pre made find beginning has a law unconstitutional on court From the sumption, unproved assumption, guess, it, than or rather state if it clear instrumentality respect noncomplying officers, other can was didates, ballot, years, or placing then in this other names Judges duty discharge it wanted prac put it ordered Probate a on—if have followed order no names consistent performing any except qualified tice of candi- their those of duties. — parties dates. The actions requirements The 274-275 §§ obligation court’s own measure Voting Rights do not violate Act of laws, valid, that are if enforce require The U.S.C.A. parties few or a benefit not designating ment finance committee public public at but officers prerequisite is not a “test or device” large.9 registration voting or under 1973b. We need not decide designa whether facts, Turning “standard, practice, procedure or finance are filed tions of committees respect voting” 1973c, under because Secretary of or with with the inwas existence before November There is no sub of Probate.10 1964.11 compliance stantial of lack of evidence in this Therefore, other candidates 274-275 with §§ court declares that §§ election, nor custom or other 274 and 275 of Tit. 17 are not unconsti- practice or or state officers at faces, proved tutional on their are not All, county level, acting of not thereon. applica- to be unconstitutional in their most, reported tion, of the handful of cases Voting and are not violative of the Supreme Rights the Alabama are suits Court Act of 1965. brought by force voters to Constitutionality pubic deny officer concerned to the Garrett Act place non-complying on the ballot Act, candidate. But the extent of enforce Garrett Act No. 243 of the ment, enforcement, by legislature, Special or lack of routine Alabama Ses- sion, adopted May 11, 1967, prohibits administrative action which reaches by Secretary (for newspapers, state, neither courts nor district legal courts, offices) certifying action in and the circuit not federal from and proved, Judge (for county to either as the office of the of- fices) Secretary any causing printed State or as to one or to Judges general more of the Probate. ballots a election the There name temporary hearing elector, 9. To that end at the on idential which us causes to ex- restraining unusually order amine her acts with the court directed de- careful scrutiny. notify plaintiffs’ Judges fense counsel to counsel The of Probate are not such reasons other than those raised candidates. in and this suit known to the defendants 10a. The Reports Attorney General why any plaintiffs’ class members of Alabama reveal that from time to time qualify sought. did not offices Judges sought have of- Probate his sought majority by great 10. The offices a opinion respect ficial to non-com- of the NDPA candidates are such pliance putting on the ballot. names they deal with in elec- Probate Att’y.Gen. Rep. 1934-36, p. of Ala. matters, including filing ap- tion in the 611; 1940, Jan.-Mar. at 360. propriate county probate the des- offices ignations 14, in finance committees. See cases cited text at note pres- of State is a candidate for infra. keys in with not file decla- Tit. 348. This who does of a candidate § 336-337, requirement to referred to a candidate ration become of intention §§ above, by day party reason first that a which for such on or before the gen- strength primary voting year in its is within March of the which days by the first before If the declarant law must act

eral election is held. by Tuesday May an- political in if it use wishes a candidate for nomination designate party party nomination. he whose other method of must seeks; otherwise he must nomination he there neces- Act Prior to Garrett independent prenomination can- sarily he bewill was considerable Tuesday activity didate for the office. in before the first require May, required or tended to which requirement statement that date of intent before commitment intent in context as must be viewed day though necessarily same part complete Alabama electoral early as in instances as all process. sought March The candidate who provides Alabama for nomination of by primary his nomination declared with general to run in election historically party by March 1 and was by primary, convention, party mass meet May. campaigning early Those until ings, petitions. Also the ballot in seeking by meetings nomination mass provide required election support for also would have to seek votes space for write-in ballots for other Tuesday May in be cast on first persons for whom voters desire meeting but in a mass rather than cast cast ballots. Tit. 155.11a by seeking primary ballot, one Tuesday May key The first in is a by petition nomination have ob- would processes date in all the of nomination required signatures tain the in order provides. for which Alabama Pri- law petition file the on time. And the mary elections are Tues- held the first person seeking by nomination convention day May. in party Tit. 340.12 If a find, support would have to and elicit meeting nominates mass it must hold delegates for, favorable who would be meeting Tuesday May on the first in meetings chosen at mass held on the first vicinity at or in polling place. aof Tuesday May. in Tit. 413-414. One nominated §§ The Garrett Act adds to nominat- petition petition must file his with the ing system requirement can- all Judge Probate, of State or state their didates intent March appropriate, Tuesday before the first filing (except a statement of intent May. Delegates Tit. seeking by primary, one nomination party convention of a which will party his declaration with his serves nominate convention are chosen at intent). lieu of the statement of meetings Tuesday May. the first system The Alabama electoral does not Tit. 413-414. §§ major reserve the ballot established desiring parties One to be a candidate in the and exclude minor ones. There primary parties must gen- file his declaration of are seven on the November candidacy party by with general his eral March 1. election ballot.13 This elec- 11 a. None of procedures new, Alphabetically they 13. these is all are: Alabama In- having many years. dependent Party, been in effect for Democratic American Independent Party Democra- party twenty A which cast more than Party, Republican Party, tic Prohibition per general cent in ihe vote the last Party, Party, The Alabama Conservative state, county, election in the or in the Party The National Democratic Ala- state, county, primary must hold a or running bama. Five are full ten slates of unless it files with presidential candidates for electors. One days its election not so at least 60 do running partial is a slate. primary. before the date A choice changed so made until be after next Tit. election. 336-337. appear contend that unique even Plaintiffs nor is neither ballot tion independent vice which persons alone an time is number certain No unusual. constitutionally imper- party. No makes March 1 a a constitute required to especially bearing organization date, formality in mind missible particular length 1 until from March a statewide of time required. need not be There a nation- If were unrelated organization with November. time or affiliation nonexclusory orderly, fair, To be and nominat- party national convention. or al independent ing part procedures, of an petition or a as an were nominated scheme, exclusory system office or a state or federal overall candidate for signatures, only argument for a force. Plain- would have one needs more signa- only rely municipal county v. Rhodes and tiffs Williams So- Party (S.D. Rhodes cialist Labor tures. Tit. Ohio, 1968), Aug. 29, F.Supp. part of not a Act is Thus the Garrett three-judge decided court a district keep system pervasive or scheme a argued August 29, 1968, Ohio on in parties independents off minor and Supreme Court on October political domain and reserve the ballot Those cases were concerned Ohio with major parties. the two By legislative a election laws. series is no evidence that enactment There changed pre- enactments had Ohio its degree in racial- (allowing the Garrett Act was vious laws election nomination by primary by petition, ly NDPA. and and allow- motivated or directed at ing votes) effectively write-in so toas only tends to show evidence before us processes eliminate from its all electoral generally accepted reason what as the minority parties independent and candi- enactment, intended that it was and dates also abolished write-in bal- legislature viewed correct what lots, keeping thereby political arena nominating against inequity party an Republican par- for the Democratic and only (presently primary the Demo- Only presidential ties. in- electors were statewide; Party Re- there cratic In volved. connection with its discussion counties), primaries publican in some impossibility qualifying inde- arising parties fact that nomi- from the pendent presidential candidates elec- nating by hold methods could back other tors, against backdrop of im- selectively deciding upon candidates and possibility minority getting party against place their candidates choose ballot, the court described as un- potential nominees the nominees or requirement peti- reasonable that a appear primary who most vulnerable. tion nomination to as an state office framework of Viewed independent days must filed 90 before system the the total Alabama electoral primary election. The element time time March establishment of fixed part system, was a an overall ex- plus days May can for all clusory exclusory purpose in ef- is not con didates to commit themselves fect. Certainly stitutionally impermissible. right political groups is no constitutional vested in Ala there Those parties formally perma all more voters bama and more organized begin nently the formal electoral elec familiar with gun. process procedures compliance starter’s will same tion find prohibi But there is no constitutional the statement of intent law easier than against legislature’s requir those who tion are not. But this difference ing means, presents incident alone no infirmi reasonable constitutional ty. fair, orderly problem what it The re to deems and effec same will exist with machinery, gard requirements to candi the tive election all of election begin regardless laws of the of the dates must formal election details elec by machinery provided by process toral the state. a fixed date. 1012 early advantages of Some disqualification of candidates The 4. dem- clear-cut declarations of intent on especially case, in view onstrated mass ground conduct a to of failure sending problem absentee of the meeting time in Huntsville. military persons in the service. ballots to cer- declined to The filed still was When this suit was there names tify to the widespread confusion over which offices re- of the NDPA of most NDPA were some of the state, quired the entire on to be voted seeking and whether could some them judicial district, congressional by a or qualify un- for those offices for reasons Her as- district. circuit or senatorial related to suit. As a result two, grounds to com- failure were serted hearing initial is- before this on court Act, we have ply which the Garrett with restraining temporary suance of a order above, possession and the dealt with a number con- of NDPA candidates were indicating that information her qualified ceded to were meeting in not held a mass NDPA had dropped places as claimants for on the (Huntsville May 7, 1968. Huntsville ballots. been re- The uncertainties have throughout many places was one of duced but not eliminated.14 The seeking to NDPA was state at which pro- and the voters in a have interest 7.)May meetings in- The hold mass properly cedure which observed from two of a letter formation consisted mistakes, tend to filter out of the some per- who had no residents Huntsville pitfalls misunderstandings early knowledge the mass whether sonal rather than late. held, accompanied af- meeting was The Garrett is not a “vot Act persons containing “evi- two fidavits of ing qualification prerequisite to vot nature, large- most slender dence” ing” “standard, practice proce or a hearsay, ly part at- and in circumstantial respect voting” dure within the negative tempting certification

meaning Voting Rights Act meeting held. had been Whitley 42 U.S.C.A. 1973c. See Secretary of The matter furnished the Johnson, Rel.L.Rep. (S. v. 12 Race 2031 inquiry her authorized to make D.Miss.1967) (three-judge court); Bun had com- ascertain if plied statute been Patterson, F.Supp. (S.D. ton v. 281 918 Kinney House, Ala. with. 243 Miss.1967); Fairley Patterson, F. 282 (1942); Report 10 167 So.2d Supp. (S.D.Miss.1967).15 Compare 164 1934-36, Attorney General of Trussed, F.Supp. (M. Sellers 4. NDPA to Instead she directed at D.Ala.1966) court). (three-judge why it removed show cause should not be Therefore, Court declares ballot, and, from the after had filed Act, the Garrett Act No. Ala- data, supplemental declined to various certify Session, Legislature, Special bama candidates, excep- its with two face, is not unconstitutional tions.16 proved unconstitutionally applied, to be certify candi refusal Voting and is not in Rights violation basis of letter and dates af- ofAct party representatives throughout leadership 14. The NDPA knew of re- quirements prior state. of the Garrett Act 1, 1968, party March mem- and advised necessity compliance. bers of the Those been consolidated eases have headquarters argument Supreme NDPA state notified coun- set before the jurisdiction ty Court, questions post- chairmen to have members file state- poned hearing ments of did and some did until intent. Some merits. by counsel, NDPA not. was advised 392 U.S. L.Ed.2d S.Ct. prepared its counsel obtained or either for NDPA use statement of intent forms Why exceptions (which designation of a finance there were two is not included committee) were distributed made clear this court. which prin- of basic a violation fidavits was process equal protection,

ciples due Attorney The General arid the This so and essential fairness. Secretary re of State have duties with regard as nomi- to candidates certified they spect election, meeting and nated at the Huntsville regarding and the Governor have duties state convention nominated at the those persons presiden the vote of elected as were, documents as well. same tial electors. state officers These three along statements failure file presidential candidates electors. intent, the basis for the refusal of Plaintiffs claim that a of ad situation Secretary certify verse interest is created which violates the state conventions nominated at of the United States Constitution. NDPA, July 20, 1968. held on 280 of the of Ala § Constitution bama, holding which forbids of two complex not factual We do decide profit state offices for at the same time. meetings, includ- issues of whether mass perceive We no violation of the United ing meeting, held Huntsville were presi States Constitution. purportedly and whether Ray dential is a elector state office. meetings nominated at such valid- were Blair, 214, 343 U.S. L. S.Ct. ly certified. We do hold' that the action (1952); Ed. 894 In Green, re 134 U.S. denying of the cer- (1890); S.Ct. 33 L.Ed. 951 candidates, tification to NDPA insofar States, Walker v. United 93 F.2d 383 alleged as was based on failure hold (8th Cir.), denied, cert. 303 U.S. meeting, was Huntsville unconstitu- S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. 1103 Wheth alleged tional. We also hold that er 280 of the Alabama Constitution meeting failure to hold Huntsville infringed has been is a matter any Judge cannot be the basis for law. denying place Probate the ballot Having disposed of the substantial only candidate, if evi- questions NDPA federal constitutional we supporting dence such basis is let- decline to decide the various factual disputes parties which do ter affidavits above described. relate to ques- those federal constitutional give Those documents do than no more tions, purely and the various issues inquiry by Judges cause for state law. or the case as the 52, Fed.R.Civ.P., Pursuant to Rule may They may be. not alone be opinion findings constitutes fact place cause of denial of a on the ballot. and conclusions of law of the court. (cid:127)Judgment accordingly. will be entered DECREE findWe no merit in the 17, 148, providing claims that Tit. having The court entered its memoran- appear of a name candidate opinion containing findings dum its only the ballot one time and under one law, is, fact and conclusions of there- party emblem, is unconstitutional and in fore, Voting Rights violation of the Act of Considered, ordered, adjudged 1965. Nor find do we constitution decreed as follows: infirmity 125, relating al in Tit. appointment, designated under cir 274-275, 1. Tit. Code of Ala. §§ cumstances, (1958), of election part Corrupt officials of the Alabama political parties having two Law, received Practices is not unconstitutional highest number face, proved of votes at last has been be un- constitutionally election. applied, and does not Voting provisions applied the the violate Practices Law was not uncon- Rights stitutionally Act of the 42 U.S.C.A. 1973- in this case NDPA 73p. the and that Garrett Law constitution- face, and, therefore, al on its from Act, 2. The Garrett No. 243 of the Act conclusion that some or all of the NDPA legislature, Special Session, Alabama place candidates are not entitled to a on face, is not not unconstitutional on its has the November-ballot. proved unconstitutionally ap- been to be provisions plied, does not violate I. THE CORRUPT PRACTICES LAW Voting Rights Act fully majority’s I concur in the hold- 1973-73p. U.S.C.A. § ing Corrupt that the Alabama Practices Amos, 3. The refusal Mabel S. Law is constitutional on its face. The Secretary State approach law is a reasonable to a diffi- Alabama, certify candidates NDPA in- problem. Although cult disqualification upon sofar as was based the letter and noncompliance the candidate for is a opinion described in the affidavits remedy, legislature drastic might court, equal was a violation remedy well conclude that such a is neces- protection process, due laws and of sary voluntary compliance. to foster guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amend- laws, however, best of can be ment to the Constitution of the United unworthy Here, invoked in an manner. States. strictly was invoked as an after- alleged 4. The failure NDPA thought. majority As the concedes: meeting Huntsville, hold a mass “When the May 7, 1968, declined not be the certify to' the Judge denying of Probate basis NDPA place candidates who filed nomina- on the NDPA ballot tions in her office she candidate, only support- did not assert if the evidence comply failure to ing with the Act as one of such basis is letter and affidavits her motivations. Her opinion motivation described in the of the court. judicial irrelevant to a determination (1958), Tit. of Ala. Code of whether the Act is constitutional on face, is not unconstitutional is not (Emphasis added.) its face.” proved unconstitutionally applied, to be Corrupt Practices Act has not Voting and is not violation of Nor, fallen into disuse. as the cases cited Rights Act of 1973- U.S.C.A. § majority indicate, remedy has 73p. disqualification. cases, In all those (1958), 6. Tit. Code of Ala. however, opposing Act was invoked face, is not unconstitutional on its concerned voters. proved applied in an unconstitu- having Alabama adopted State officials manner, tional and does not violate practice relying consistent party Voting Rights Act of 1965. public policing and enforcement of prayers temporary 7. The Act, it is not tolerable for this Court permanent injunctions are denied. The to allow these officials to make their temporary restraining order entered on foray first in the enforcement direction September 18, 1968, is dissolved. against small, new, surely and almost against are Costs taxed one-half impecunious group seeking of candidates against plaintiffs and one-half the de- party in Alabama. This is to form newa Amos, fendant Mabel S. particularly true when the defendant of- State of Alabama. taking such action are ficials who presidential electors Judge JOHNSON, (dissent- District opposing party. Whether ballot of an ing). interest, this cir- a formal conflict conjoined respectfully cumstance, those I must dissent when majority’s holdings above, justifies Corrupt inference Corrupt Act, face, The seek relief from Practices fair on its candidates who precisely find has Court themselves almost been: George found the situation C. Wallace by public “applied and administered himself in of an Ohio law reason authority eye with an and an un- evil required petition for nomination hand, equal practically so as to make electors) presidential be state office illegal unjust and discriminations be- days primary filed at 90 before the least persons in tween similar circumstances ” * * * general election the election. rather than Hopkins, Yick v. Wo a In an action these Wallace electors 356, 373-374, 1064, 1073, U.S. S.Ct. sitting three-judge the in Federal Court (1886). L.Ed. 220 Ohio,1 Southern stated: District right the to In this vital area of vote require- an unreasonable “This is office, and to for the courts must not run peti- past ment. The time is now when judicial duty exercise hesitate to their independent the nomination of tions for application to ensure an evenhanded presidential for electors candidates the election laws. Alabama George supporting C. could Wallace filed, ninety THE LAW days II. GARRETT the before even election. November requires The Garrett Law that concede the State “Plaintiffs that file a declaration right legitimate in, a has a to, interest to run of intention day on or before the first electoral year an and efficient effective of March of the in which the giving process, thus is State election held. right impose restrictions to reasonable Although might reasonably state a legitimate purposes, con- due after require sufficiently candidate file a cost, sideration of convenience permit of the election to adminis- advance other burdens. On administrative preparations, defendants do not trative that hand defendants have conceded purpose would re- contend that such stand, Laws, they now Ohio Election quire eight Indeed, months’ notice. though impairment, it do constitute majority generally recites, it is ac- plain- ‘insubstantial’, of was termed cepted that Garrett Law: right In context to vote. tiffs’ judicial intended what “was to correct upon must be centered focus legislature inequity viewed as an ascertaining impairment whether against party nominating by primary constitutionally permissible. is (presently only Party), Democratic begin principle that with the “We arising parties from the fact that “ precious right nominating by ‘No is more other methods could having a country than free that deciding upon hold back candidates and who of those selectively the election voice in place choose and their good which, as against make laws under nominees rights, citizens, potential must live. Other by primary we nominees who illusory if basic, are appear most even the most vulnerable.” right vote undermined. political party of one Protection no room Our leaves Constitution political party permis- another is not a way people that classification unnecessarily object legislation. sible if Even it be right.’ abridges thought permissible, scarcely it would Sanders, Wesberry U.S. v. justify impact the adverse which this 526, 535, L.Ed.2d 17-18, 84 S.Ct. right statute has on the to an effective vote for the candidate of one’s choice. right of Also, Here, process is clear of choice of candidates imposi- subject only suffrage unreasonably early cut off at an date. filed August 29, 1968. F.Supp. S.D.Ohio, Party 983 and Labor et al. Rhodes et U.S.D.C. Socialist ., al position write-in, they tion of state standards which are effective discriminatory. Harper Virginia unconstitutional and void.” Elections, Board of 383 U.S. [State] Equal If the Clause of the Protection 86 S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 169 Fourteenth Amendment Constitu- (1966), Gray Sanders, 372 U.S. invoked to tion of the United States is 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 821 protect presidential the interests Supreme The United States seeking electors to run as candidates recognized power Court has George Party Third in the C. Wallace’s impose qualifica- reasonable Ohio, ap- can be and must be restrictions, tions but has declared plied protect the interests of these these had be established on a Negro in the and white candidates non-discriminatory and that basis Indeed, Alabama. the Alabama classifications drawn into statutes scrutiny now under Election Law light had be reasonable in of their majority un- Court that holds is not Carrington purpose. Rash, supra, application or on its constitutional U.S. L.Ed.2d [380 85 S.Ct. requires candidacy face a declaration here 675]. ‘We deal with matters close eight prior some months to the core of our constitutional constitutionally me, To election. system.’ Carrington Rash, supra, impermis- and therefore unreasonable page 96, at U.S. 85 S.Ct. [775] I, therefore, dissent. sible. page right at 780. The choose that protect courts have so zealous to been

means at the least that states

casually deprive a class of individuals right of the vote or individual political

to seek because some remote administrative benefit to the America, UNITED STATES state. Plaintiff, “The attention of this Court has been centered on whether the Election Ohio CORPORATION, CAPITAL COLEMAN Laws, extent these laws corporation, Defendant. an Illinois prevent qualification political C No. 68 parties and their ballot satisfy position, ‘necessity,’ the tests of District Court States United ‘equality,’ and ‘reasonableness.’ As Illinois, E. D. N. D. evidenced both on the face of these Jan. operation- statutes as well as in their effect, imposed al the restrictions do

not meet these tests. These restric- protec- equal

tions are violative clause

tion of the Fourteenth Amend- constitutionally

ment and are thus im-

permissible.

“We conclude that to the extent that impose

the Ohio Election un- Laws qualifi-

reasonable restrictions political parties,

cations of third minority participation

restrict process, prevent

Ohio’s electoral candi- president vice-president

dates qualifying independents right

deprive plaintiffs of their .of suffrage, either denial ballot

Case Details

Case Name: Hadnott v. Amos

Court Name: District Court, M.D. Alabama

Date Published: Oct 11, 1968

Citation: 295 F. Supp. 1003

Docket Number: Civ. A. 2757-N

Court Abbreviation: M.D. Ala.