Case Name: Ronald CHISOM, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Buddy ROEMER, et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1988-07-26
Citations: 850 F.2d 1051
Docket Number: No. 88-3492
Parties: Ronald CHISOM, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Buddy ROEMER, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before JOHNSON, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 850
Pages: 1051–1055

Head Matter:
Ronald CHISOM, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Buddy ROEMER, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 88-3492.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 26, 1988.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., La. Dept, of Justice, New Orleans, La., Robert G. Pugh, Shreveport, La., M. Truman Woodward, Jr., Moise W. Dennery, Blake G. Arata, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., A. R. Chris-tovich, Superintendent Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.
William P. Quigley, Roy Rodney, New Orleans, La., Pamela S. Karlan, Charles Stephen Ralston, Univ. of Virginia, Law School, Charlottesville, Va., Ron Wilson, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Mark Gross, U.S. Justice Dept., Appellate Section, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D.C., for amici curiae USA.
Peter J. Butler, New Orleans, La., for amici curiae Marcus.
Charles A. Kronlage, Jr., New Orleans, La., for amici curiae Calogero.
Ira J. Rosenzweig, New Orleans, La., amici curiae Dixon.
Paul D. Kamener, Jackson, Miss., for amici curiae Wash. Legal.
Darleen Jacobs, Brian C. Beckwith, New Orleans, La., for amicus curiae Jacobs.
Before JOHNSON, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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 election, 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.