*1
GODBOLD,
objects).
are,
ee
course,
and
Before
SIMPSON
These
of
issues we
CLARK,
do not
Judges.
A.
Circuit
decide. The issue in
THOMAS
this case is the
validity of a statute
plainly
that
is
over-
PER CURIAM:
face,
broad on its
and I can only agree that
Affirmed on the basis of the Memoran-
judgment
the
of the district court must be
Opinion
dum
court,
of the district
Abrams AFFIRMED.
Reno,
v.
THOMAS
cially concurring: my out under- only point
I write to
standing scope holding the limited of the of opinion. The district
of the district court’s held that whatever interests the state court MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST to the level a might has that in turn rise of COMPANY YORK, OF NEW could be fur- compelling state interest not Plaintiff-Appellee, by an overbroad statute that unnec- thered rights intrudes on the associational essarily v. County Party Democratic and
of the Dade BLUM, Peter al., E. Defendants, et members, holding this I whole- and with its Blum, Peter E. Defendant-Appellant. opinion in heartedly agree. The mentions however, practices may or passing, which No. 79-2031.
may support a much more limited intru- not United States Court of Appeals, the state. Whether the part sion on the of Fifth Circuit. contributions to or incur party may make Unit B party of a candidate for expenses in behalf 2, July 1981. par- that prior to nomination in nomination in- ty’s primary question constitutional is a that have not been
volving party practices court or
made an issue either in the lower