Julius W. Hobson v. Board of Elections for the District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Julius W. Hobson v. Board of Elections for the District of Columbia

444 F.2d 874, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 416, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11424

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1971

Docket71-1009_1

StatusPublished

This text of 444 F.2d 874 (Julius W. Hobson v. Board of Elections for the District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Julius W. Hobson v. Board of Elections for the District of Columbia, 444 F.2d 874, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 416, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11424 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment of the District Court refusing to convene a three-judge court and dismissing the complaint having come on for expedited hearing, and the court having considered the matter on the papers and the arguments of counsel, it is hereby

Ordered that the judgment appealed from, insofar as it relates to (a) the nonvoting status of the officer provided by the District of Columbia Delegate Act and (b) the various statutory provisions bearing upon the manner of his selection, is affirmed by reason of the insubstantiality of the questions raised. See Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (95 Wheat.) 317, 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820); Heald v. District of Columbia, 259 U.S. 114, 42 S.Ct. 434, 66 L.Ed. 852 (1922); Carliner v. Commissioner of District of Columbia, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 412 F.2d 1090, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 987, 90 S.Ct. 482, 24 L.Ed.2d 451 (1969); Breakefield v. District of Columbia, 143 U.S.App.D.C.-, 442 F.2d 1227, cert. denied, 401 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed.2d 807, February 22, 1971; Hobson v. Tobriner, 255 F.Supp. 295 (D.D.C. 1966), petition for review of mandamus denied sub nom. Hobson v. Gasch (D.C.Cir. No. 20,838, decided September 29, 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 914, 87 S.Ct. 863, 17 L.Ed.2d 787 (1967); Moore v. Board of Elections, 319 F.Supp. 437 (D.D.C.1970); Lyons v. Davoren, 402 F.2d 890 (1st Cir. 1968); United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947). The court is also of the view that, with respect to the challenge to the filing fee requirements, the allegations of the complaint do not present any live controversy appropriate for judicial resolution; and it is further

Ordered that, insofar as the judgment appealed from involves the challenge by appellants to the party qualifying provisions for the Presidential election contained in Section 8(f) of the District of Columbia Election Act, it is vacated and the case remanded to the District Court for hearing and determination of the preliminary question of whether the constitutional issues are sufficiently ripe for resolution at this time at the instance of these appellants as to warrant the convening of a three-judge court. See Georgia Socialist Workers Party v. Fortson, 315 F.Supp. 1035 (N.D.Ga.), prob. juris, noted, Jenness v. Fortson, 400 U.S. 877, 91 S.Ct. 127, 27 L.Ed.2d 114 (1970), with which compare Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 318 F.Supp. 1262 (S.D.Ohio 1970). We intimate no opinion as to the merits of those issues.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment of the District Court refusing to convene a three-judge court and dismissing the complaint having come on for expedited hearing, and the court having considered the matter on the papers and the arguments of counsel, it is hereby

Ordered that the judgment appealed from, insofar as it relates to (a) the nonvoting status of the officer provided by the District of Columbia Delegate Act and (b) the various statutory provisions bearing upon the manner of his selection, is affirmed by reason of the insubstantiality of the questions raised. See Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (95 Wheat.) 317, 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820); Heald v. District of Columbia, 259 U.S. 114, 42 S.Ct. 434, 66 L.Ed. 852 (1922); Carliner v. Commissioner of District of Columbia, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 412 F.2d 1090, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 987, 90 S.Ct. 482, 24 L.Ed.2d 451 (1969); Breakefield v. District of Columbia, 143 U.S.App.D.C.-, 442 F.2d 1227, cert. denied, 401 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed.2d 807, February 22, 1971; Hobson v. Tobriner, 255 F.Supp. 295 (D.D.C. 1966), petition for review of mandamus denied sub nom. Hobson v. Gasch (D.C.Cir. No. 20,838, decided September 29, 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 914, 87 S.Ct. 863, 17 L.Ed.2d 787 (1967); Moore v. Board of Elections, 319 F.Supp. 437 (D.D.C.1970); Lyons v. Davoren, 402 F.2d 890 (1st Cir. 1968); United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947). The court is also of the view that, with respect to the challenge to the filing fee requirements, the allegations of the complaint do not present any live controversy appropriate for judicial resolution; and it is further

Ordered that, insofar as the judgment appealed from involves the challenge by appellants to the party qualifying provisions for the Presidential election contained in Section 8(f) of the District of Columbia Election Act, it is vacated and the case remanded to the District Court for hearing and determination of the preliminary question of whether the constitutional issues are sufficiently ripe for resolution at this time at the instance of these appellants as to warrant the convening of a three-judge court. See Georgia Socialist Workers Party v. Fortson, 315 F.Supp. 1035 (N.D.Ga.), prob. juris, noted, Jenness v. Fortson, 400 U.S. 877, 91 S.Ct. 127, 27 L.Ed.2d 114 (1970), with which compare Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 318 F.Supp. 1262 (S.D.Ohio 1970). We intimate no opinion as to the merits of those issues.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 F.2d 874, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 416, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julius-w-hobson-v-board-of-elections-for-the-district-of-columbia-cadc-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack