Document: 411 U.S. 452 93 S.Ct. 1732 36 L.Ed.2d 420 Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Secretary of State California, Appellant,v.Raymond CHOTE. No. 71—1583. Argued Feb. 22, 1973. Decided May 7, Syllabus Appellee, who sought to run for Congress but asserted that he was unable pay California's statutory filing fee, filed a class action in District Court, challenging the constitutionality filing-fee statutes. In face an impending deadline, Court granted appellee's motion preliminary injunction. Held: Given possibility appellee would prevail on merits and fact opportunity be candidate have been foreclosed, absent interim relief, did not abuse its discretion granting Pp. 456—457. 342 F.Supp. 1353, affirmed remanded. Henry Ullerich, Los Angeles, Cal., appellant. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., appellee. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 This case arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 direct appeal from three-judge district court Northern California. The convened pursuant 2281 when called into question those provisions California Elections Code which require candidates primary election fee prior having their names listed ballot. Cal.Elections §§ 6552 6553 (Supp.1973). Under these provisions, Federal House Representatives must $425 (1% annual salary office); Senate $850 (2% office). Those wishing statewide offices similar fees ranging amount $192 Assemblyman salary) $982 Governor salary). Other portions Code, challenged present suit, prospective file with appropriate state officials declaration candidacy sponsor certificates. Cal. 6490—6491, 6494—6495 (1961 Supp.1973). 2 Appellee commenced this March 3, 1972. He moved, permission, by single judge, proceed forma pauperis as his own attorney. complaint, wished become 17th had taken following steps place name nomination June 6, 1972, election. On February 17, Registrar Voters Santa Clara County, official designated law dispense forms necessary nomination. purportedly told or member office required advance order secure blank copies papers. According appellee, Registrar's Office also advised him papers exchange worthless check.1 3 proceeded immediately where presented personal check requested forms. Across check, typed 'Written protest fee.'2 issued requisite informed forwarded completed were submitted. Subsequently, Deputy placed ballot if honored.3 4 Citing Bullock v. Carter, 405 134, 92 849, 31 (1972), system unconstitutional since it barred indigents, such himself, seeking elective voting choice. addition requesting declaratory permanent injunctive moved issue pre-liminary injunction so allow participate upcoming primary. law, final date could submit nominating 10, one week away. 5 Because quickly set argument. same suit filed, Judge whom assigned entered requiring appellant show cause why interlocutory relief should granted. given five days respond. It until 7 Ninth Circuit notified application court. 8, judges compose panel. day, heard oral speed developed, neither nor hearing consider appellant's return cause, only paper able prepare. 6 9, day after argument before deadline papers, injunction, stating: 'Since no . showing has made State, concerning either necessity, purpose reasonableness statutes question, we conclude within rationale holding (v. (1972)), plaintiff may that, constitutional right irreparably lost.' 1355—1356. (Emphasis added.) 8 terms others similarly situated without paying long they otherwise eligible applicable federal deposited affidavit attesting indigency. 9 appealed directly 1253. Its Jurisdictional Statement posed two questions: 10 'Under decision statute candidate's per cent (1%) first year's is Equal Protection grounds does 'rational basis' 'close scrutiny' standard judicial review United States, 279 229, 11 'Do sections deny voters indigent equal protection laws?' 12 Thus, reasons clear us light limited record, asked address itself ultimate claim, reach. posture case, there occasion any issues beyond addressed 13 issuance determining whether required, properly relevant factors: first, possibilities success merits; second, irreparable injury resulted, relief. As clearly evidences, reflected balance reached weighing factors sense intended statute. exigent circumstances, grant extraordinary permissible choice; very record appropriate. 14 reviewing constituted discretion. Alabama Unitd 49 266, 73 L.Ed. 675 (1929); States Corrick, 298 435, 56 829, 80 1263 (1936); Fuel Gas Co. Public Service Comm'n West Virginia, 278 322, 157, 402 National Fire Insurance Hartford Thompson, 281 331, 50 288, 74 881 (1930). arguments some cannot court's We therefore affirm 15 doing so, intimate view contentions. reflects time parties assemble evidence prepare argumnts. While Court's swift understandable faced, resulting simply insufficient fully grave, far-reaching qustions presented. 16 specific led equitable now passed.4 Nothing precludes trial merits, chooses proceed. remanded further proceedings consistent opinion.5 17 Affirmed denies advice ever communicated submitted County stated policy distribute anyone represented worthless. knowledge, upon presentation check. When argued claimed account drawn contain sufficient funds cover it. However, alleged complaint. Appellant spoken, disputing claim honored. Although passed, raised 'capable repetition, yet evading review.' Consequently, moot. Southern Pacific Terminal ICC, 219 498, 515, 279, 283, 55 310 (1911); Moore Ogilvie, 394 814, 816, 89 1493, 1494, 23 (1969). certiorari 71—6852, Lubin Allison, 964, 2152, 684, conflicts holdings regarding

Category: 8