Danforth v. Christian

351 F. Supp. 287, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11360
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedOctober 31, 1972
DocketCiv. A. 1825
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 351 F. Supp. 287 (Danforth v. Christian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Danforth v. Christian, 351 F. Supp. 287, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11360 (W.D. Mo. 1972).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT OF THREE JUDGE COURT

WILLIAM H. BECKER, Chief Judge.

This is a civil action, under § 1983, Title 42 U.S.C.A., for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of the Missouri Constitution and Missouri statutes prescribing durational residence requirements as qualifications for the right to vote in Missouri general, primary and other elections. 1 The original plaintiff is the Attorney General of Missouri. The defendant Clerk of Cole County is the officer authorized by Missouri to conduct registration of potential voters and to administer the election laws within Cole County, one of the 114 counties (including the City of St. Louis, as one separate co-ordinate county type political subdivision).

The standing of the Attorney General to maintain an action under § 1983 was questioned early by the Court and by the defendant. This question has been rendered moot by order of the District Court adding the individual plaintiffs Daniel P. Card II and Margaret Tyler Card, each of whom had been denied by the defendant, the right to register for the purpose of voting, for election of any officer or for any purpose in the General Election scheduled for November 7, 1972. The evidence establishes, without controversy, that Mr. and Mrs. Card are, and have been domiciled resident citizens of Missouri and of Cole County, Missouri, for many more than thirty days prior to November 7, 1972. The standing of Mr. and Mrs. Card to maintain this action under § 1983 is not questioned.

The Honorable James C. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of State of Missouri, on his motion was permitted to appear as amicus curiae. Secretary Kirkpatrick has offered and provided full and prompt assistance in solution of the problems presented by this civil action.

On September 22, 1972, pursuant to notice, a plenary evidentiary hearing upon all questions (including the propriety of the issuance of a temporary restraining order) was held by a single district judge.

The primary issues considered at that hearing were: (1) the right to a temporary restraining order and the power of a single judge to grant such an order; (2) the necessity for convening a Three Judge Court; (3) the right to a declaratory judgment; (4) the right to a judi *289 cial determination that the action proceed as a class action in respect to the proposed class of plaintiffs; and (5) on the initiative of the Court the propriety of a judicial determination that the action proceed as a class action in respect to a defendant class consisting of all officers and other officials of the state and its political subdivisions charged with enforcement and application of the challenged state laws.

After consideration of the pleadings, evidence, briefs and arguments it was determined by a single judge that:

(1) The class action request of plaintiffs should be granted under subparagraphs (b)(1)(A) and (b) (2) of Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P., as a compulsory class.
(2) On the initiative of the Court, the action should proceed as a class action under subparagraphs (b) (1)(A) and (b)(2) of Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P., against a compulsory defendant class, consisting of all officers and other officials charged with the enforcement and application of the provisions of the Constitution and laws of Missouri prescribing qualifications for registration and voting in the general election of 1972, and subsequent general, primary and other elections.
(3) A temporary restraining order should be immediately issued restraining, until further order of Court, the named defendant and members of the defendant class, (a) from denying any domiciled citizen of Missouri the right to register and to vote in the general election to be held November 7, 1972, if the citizen requests registration before the time fixed by law which is either October 10, 1972, or October 11, 1972, depending on the particular statute applicable and (b) from enforcing, in any area in which registration is not required, any" state law prescribing a period of domicile of more than 30 days duration prior to voting in any election.
(4) The best practicable notice to be given to members of the tentative plaintiff and defendant classes is through a joint press release issued by the original plaintiff and amicus curiae to each county clerk and chairman of each Board of Election Commissioners and to news media by news releases advising members of the class of the extent of the proposed judgment and that each of them may by writing or personal appearance signify whether they consider the representation of the class fair and adequate, intervene in the action and present claims or defenses, or otherwise come into the action. The original plaintiff and amicus curiae are hereby authorized to issue news releases to the county clerks, the chairman aforesaid and to the news media accurately notifying the members of each class of the contents of this memorandum including but not limited to this subparagraph.
(5) A Three Judge Court should he convened for further proceedings in this action.

Orders implementing these determinations have been' entered, and a Three Judge Court convened by Chief Circuit Judge M. C. Matthes. Emergency and adequate notice through the news media has been effectively given to the members of the plaintiff class and the defendant class, without use of penalty covers of the District Court or Clerk thereof.

Because of the imminent general election of November 7, 1972, with the approval of the District Court ratified and confirmed by this Three Judge Court, this action by agreement has been finally submitted for final decision upon the pleadings, briefs and record of the plenary evidentiary hearing and oral argument of September 22, 1972, before a single district judge. Further hearing *290 and argument before this Three Judge Court has been waived, because of sufficiency of the prior hearing and because of the urgency of the circumstances.

The class action determinations and orders by the District Court heretofore entered in this action are hereby approved, confirmed and adopted by this Three Judge Court.

All constitutional, statutory and other provisions of Missouri law (a) denying any domiciled citizen of Missouri the right to register and to vote in the general election to be held November 7, 1972, if the domiciled citizen requests registration, otherwise proper, before the close of registration, which is fixed by law at either October 10, 1972, or October 11, 1972, depending on the applicable statute, and (b) denying the right to vote to any citizen, who has been a domiciled resident citizen of Missouri and of a voting precinct thereof (in which registration is not required) for thirty days or more prior to November 7, 1972, are unconstitutional and void under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Henson v. East Lincoln Township
108 F.R.D. 107 (C.D. Illinois, 1985)
In re the Gap Stores Securities Litigation
79 F.R.D. 283 (N.D. California, 1978)
United States v. Trucking Employers, Inc.
75 F.R.D. 682 (District of Columbia, 1977)
Redhail v. Zablocki
418 F. Supp. 1061 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 F. Supp. 287, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danforth-v-christian-mowd-1972.