Opinion ID: 42566
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comm’n, 565 F.2d 295, 297 n.3 (5th Cir.

Text: The Board contends that the Center’s claim 1977), that “[s]uits challenging the validity of is moot because the election that gave rise to state election laws are classic examples of casthe complaint has already occurred. Mootness es in which the issues are ‘capable of repetiis “the doctrine of standing in a time frame. tion, yet evading review.’” The case before us The requisite personal interest that must exist therefore satisfies the first prong of that excepat the commencement of litigation (standing) tion. must continue throughout its existence (moot- ness).” United States Parole Comm’n v. Ger- With regard to the second prong of the aghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980). Generally, “capable of repetition, yet evading review” any set of circumstances that eliminates actual inquiry, the Center has stated that it “has spokcontroversy after the commencement of a law- en out on public issues in Louisiana in the past suit renders that action moot. and plans to do so in the future.” Complaint ¶ 3(b). Thus, the Center may again feel the There are, however, exceptions to the oper- need to censor itself to avoid possible applicaation of the mootness doctrine. For purposes tion of the CFDA. The Board does not disof this case, the relevant exception is “the class pute the Center’s assertion regarding its past of controversies capable of repetition, yet and likely future activity in Louisiana, and evading review.” First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, there is no reason to doubt that claim. 435 U.S. 765, 774 (1978). Outside the class action context, the “capable of repetition, yet Moreover, despite the Supreme Court’s reevading review” exception can be invoked if minder that there must be a “reasonable extwo elements are met: “(1) [T]he challenged pectation that the same complaining party action was in its duration too short to be fully would be subject to the same action again,” litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149, the Court does and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that not always focus on whether a particular the same complaining party would be sub- plaintiff is likely to incur the same injury. For jected to the same action again.” Weinstein v. example, in Storer, 415 U.S. at 737 n.8, the Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975). Court stated that “[t]he 1972 election is long over, and no effective relief can be provided to Controversy surrounding election laws, in- the candidates or voters, but this case is not cluding campaign finance regulations, is one of moot, since the issues properly presented, and the paradigmatic circumstances in which the their effects on independent candidacies, will Supreme Court has found that full litigation persist as the California statutes are applied in can never be completed before the precise future elections.” controversy (a particular election) has run its course.6 Echoing Supreme Court precedent, Similarly, in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. this court stated in Morial v. Judiciary 330, 333 n.2 (1972), the Court held that the exception to the mootness doctrine applied de- spite the fact that the plaintiff would no longer 6 be subject to the challenged statute, because See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 “[a]lthough [plaintiff] now can vote, the prob- (1969); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 n.8 (1974); First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 774; Nor- lem to voters posed by the Tennessee resi- man v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 288 (1992). dence requirements is ‘capable of repetition, 5 yet evading review.’” Thus, even if it were tion . . . as reports required of political doubtful that the Center would again attempt committees,” which includes “the full name to engage in election-related speech in Louisi- and address of each person who has made one ana, precedent suggests that this case is not or more contributions to and which have been moot, because other individuals certainly will received and accepted by the [individual or be affected by the continuing existence of the group] during the reporting period.” LA. REV. CFDA. STAT. § 18:1491.7(B)(4)(a).