Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee Malone, Intervenor

Supreme Court

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee Malone, Intervenor

543 U.S. 1304, 125 S. Ct. 306, 160 L. Ed. 2d 216, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 7401

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 2, 2004

Docket04A378

StatusPublished

This text of 543 U.S. 1304 (Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee Malone, Intervenor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee Malone, Intervenor, 543 U.S. 1304, 125 S. Ct. 306, 160 L. Ed. 2d 216, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 7401 (2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Justice Souter, Circuit Justice.

The individual Ohio voter who intervened in this case claimed that the Republican National Committee threatened to violate a consent decree, by challenging Ohio voters named on a list of 35,000 individual names compiled by Republican officials in Ohio in cooperation with the Republican National Committee. She alleged that her right to vote and that of other minority voters would be jeopardized by the anticipated challenges from the Republican side. Yesterday, the District Court found such a threatened violation and issued the injunction requested, a stay of which was denied by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit late last night. Following the action that was subject to Justice Stevens’s opinion in chambers earlier today in Spencer v. Pugh, ante, p. 1301, the Republican National Committee moved for rehearing or rehearing en banc, the latter of which was granted this afternoon by order staying the injunction. No. 04-4186, 2004 U. S. App. LEXIS 22689 (CA3, Nov. 2, 2004).. The intervenor alone has now applied to me in my capacity as Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit for a stay of the en banc order itself, which would effectively reinstate the injunction. Since making the application, she has filed a further pleading disclosing that she has already *1305 voted without challenge. Under the circumstances, I have decided against referring the application to the full Court and now deny it.

It is so ordered.

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

Justice Souter, Circuit Justice.

The individual Ohio voter who intervened in this case claimed that the Republican National Committee threatened to violate a consent decree, by challenging Ohio voters named on a list of 35,000 individual names compiled by Republican officials in Ohio in cooperation with the Republican National Committee. She alleged that her right to vote and that of other minority voters would be jeopardized by the anticipated challenges from the Republican side. Yesterday, the District Court found such a threatened violation and issued the injunction requested, a stay of which was denied by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit late last night. Following the action that was subject to Justice Stevens’s opinion in chambers earlier today in Spencer v. Pugh, ante, p. 1301, the Republican National Committee moved for rehearing or rehearing en banc, the latter of which was granted this afternoon by order staying the injunction. No. 04-4186, 2004 U. S. App. LEXIS 22689 (CA3, Nov. 2, 2004).. The intervenor alone has now applied to me in my capacity as Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit for a stay of the en banc order itself, which would effectively reinstate the injunction. Since making the application, she has filed a further pleading disclosing that she has already *1305 voted without challenge. Under the circumstances, I have decided against referring the application to the full Court and now deny it.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 U.S. 1304, 125 S. Ct. 306, 160 L. Ed. 2d 216, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 7401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/democratic-national-committee-v-republican-national-committee-malone-scotus-2004.