Case Name: Shub v. Simpson, Secretary of State of Maryland; Simpson, Secretary of State of Maryland, v. Gerende
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1950-10-23
Citations: 340 U.S. 861
Docket Number: No. 371; No. 372
Parties: Shub v. Simpson, Secretary of State of Maryland. Simpson, Secretary of State of Maryland, v. Gerende.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 340
Pages: 861–863

Head Matter:
No. 371.
No. 372.
Shub v. Simpson, Secretary of State of Maryland. Simpson, Secretary of State of Maryland, v. Gerende.
I. Duke Avnet for appellant in No. 371. Hall Hammond, Attorney General of Maryland, J. Edgar Harvey, Deputy Attorney General, and Harrison L. Winter, Assistant Attorney General, for petitioner in No. 372 and appellee in No. 371.

Opinion:
Reported below:-Md.-, 75 A. 2d 842.
No. 371 is a motion to advance and expedite the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland affirming the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus.
Appellant, petitioner below, was nominated by the Progressive Party for Governor of Maryland at a convention held on August 7, 1950. On August 18, nine days before the last date permitted by law, he tendered a certificate of nomination to the Secretary of State, a prerequisite to appearing on the ballot for the election on November 7. On the same day, August 18, the tender was rejected for failure to file an affidavit required by the Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949, Md. Laws 1949, c. 96, § 1, par. 15. On September 14, petitioner obtained from the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued to compel the Secretary of State to accept the certificate. The Secretary, on September 27, demurred to the petition; and on October 9, after a hearing, the court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. On appeal to the Maryland Court of Appeals argument was heard on October 12. That court entered a per curiam order, two judges dissenting, the same day, affirming the judgment against the petitioner and, obviously deeming an exposition of the statute necessary, stated that an opinion would thereafter be filed. On October 18 petitioner filed an appeal from this order. In this situation the motion to advance and expedite is denied.
No. 372 is a petition for writ of certiorari from the same order of the Court of Appeals insofar as it reversed the dismissal by the Circuit Court of the petition for writ of mandamus brought by a Progressive Party nominee for the United States House of Representatives. The petition is denied.