Ronald Chisom v. Buddy Roemer

850 F.2d 1051, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11057, 1988 WL 76333
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 26, 1988
Docket88-3492
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 850 F.2d 1051 (Ronald Chisom v. Buddy Roemer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ronald Chisom v. Buddy Roemer, 850 F.2d 1051, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11057, 1988 WL 76333 (5th Cir. 1988).

Opinions

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that appellants’ motion for stay pending appeal is GRANTED to the extent, and it is ORDERED, that the preliminary injunction is hereby stayed insofar only as it may prohibit actions taken or to be taken during or prior to the July 27 through July 29,1988, qualifying period for the election in question. In all other respects, appellants’ request for stay pending appeal is referred to the merits panel without action thereon by this motions panel. Should the merits panel wholly or partially reverse or stay the preliminary injunction, nothing in this order shall prevent the merits panel, should it deem such action on its part to be appropriate, from requiring (or conditioning its stay or reversal on) the State to conduct an additional qualifying period at which additional candidates may qualify for the election in question.

The panel does not have before it the record below. A majority of the panel concludes that if the preliminary injunction is not now stayed insofar only as it relates (if it does) to the qualification period, the scheduled election may be impossible to hold and the issue of the correctness of the preliminary injunction may be in substance mooted, without an opportunity for adequate appellate review. On the other hand, the panel majority is of the view that staying the preliminary injunction as to the qualification period only cannot prejudice the plaintiffs-appellees. There are only two possible alternatives in this connection. If the merits panel affirms, or fails to stay, the preliminary injunction, there will be no [1053]*1053election, and plaintiffs-appellees could not be prejudiced by the preliminary injunction having been stayed as to the qualification period. The only other alternative is that the merits panel will stay or reverse the preliminary injunction, in which event it must be assumed that the merits panel will have correctly determined that the election should go forward as scheduled; in that situation qualification should likewise proceed, as no one has suggested any reason for holding that the election is proper but the qualification procedures are not.

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

Related

Williams v. State Board of Elections
696 F. Supp. 1563 (N.D. Illinois, 1988)
Ronald Chisom v. Buddy Roemer
850 F.2d 1051 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
850 F.2d 1051, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11057, 1988 WL 76333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-chisom-v-buddy-roemer-ca5-1988.