Document: 396 U.S. 45 90 S.Ct. 200 24 L.Ed.2d 214 Richard HALL et ux., Appellants,v.Harriet BEALS, Clerk and Recorder of El Paso County, al. No. 39. Argued Oct. 14, 1969. Action to enjoin enforcement operation Colorado laws imposing residency requirements for voting in presidential election. The Three-Judge District Court, 292 F.Supp. 610, dismissed the complaint direct appeal was taken. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who were precluded from 1968 election by statutes six-month requirement but could have voted under statute as amended subsequent no longer part class disenfranchised voters not represent class, action would be moot. Judgment vacated case remanded with directions. Mr. Justice Brennan Marshall dissented. Hall, appellants, pro se. Bernard R. Baker, Springs, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 appellants moved California June 1968. They sought register vote ensuing November election, refused permission because they on day satisfied then imposed eligibility such an election.1 commenced present against appellees, electoral officials Colorado. Their challenged a violation Equal Protection, Due Process, Privilege Immunities Clauses Constitution. For relief (1) writ mandamus compelling appellees them upcoming election; (2) injunction restraining insofar applied (3) direction allow 'on conditional basis, so should either party choose United States run past time National Election 5, 1968, * [the will] become moot.'2 2 On October 30 three-judge entered judgment complaint, holding unconstitutional. Hall v. Beals, 610 (D.C.Colo.).3 As result did took this pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction, 394 1011, 89 1624, 23 38. Thereafter Legislature reduced six months two months. 3 is history, it now impossible grant Court. Further, which complained. But apart these considerations, recent amendatory has surely operated render We review below light stands, once did. Thorpe Housing Authority, 393 268, 281-282, 518, 526, 21 474; Alabama, 362 602, 604, 80 924, 926, 4 982; Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 60, 61 399, 400, 85 L.Ed. 581; Carpenter Wabash Co., 309 23, 26-27, 60 416, 417-418, 84 558; Schooner Peggy, Cranch 103, 110, 49. And currently written, therefore lost its character present, live controversy kind must exist if are avoid advisory opinions abstract propositions law. Golden Zwickler, 956, 960, 22 113; Baker Carr, 369 186, 204, 82 691, 703, 7 663; Mills Green, 159 651, 653, 16 132, 133, 40 293. object two-month vigorously rule effect when brought suit. say statutes, elsewhere, continue adverse upon millions throughout Nation. appellants' opposition general cannot alter fact far concerned nothing legislative scheme written adversely affects their interests, or interests at litigation commenced. Nor does differ denominated suit behalf voters. 'cannot [which] part,' Bailey Patterson, 31, 32-33, 549, 550, 512—that disqualified virtue new requirement, never been members. 5 Nothing Moore Ogilvie, 814, 1493, 1, contrary. There invalidated Illinois requiring independent candidates elector obtain signatures nominating petitions distributed through State. even though over, 'the burden placed nomination nominees statewide offices remains controls future elections, long maintains her system she done since 1935.' U.S., 816, 1494. problem before us "capable repetition, yet evading review," only same restriction Moore's candidacy had affected him do again 1972, Illinois, having altered statutory benefit those situated similarly Moore, adhered over years policy indication change. 6 Here, contrast, will face disenfranchisement 1972 unlikely event first move out State reestablish residence there within year. Or may take up some other State, disqualification State's speculative contingencies afford basis our passing substantive issues decide respect now-amended law supra. directions dismiss cause 8 It ordered. 9 10 BRENNAN, dissenting. 11 I dissent (1969), involved challenge constitutionality invoked deny place ballot. persuaded argument possibility granting any appellants. Even allege seek ballot constitutional question one 'capable review,' Southern Pacific Terminal Co. ICC, 219 498, 515, 31 279, 283, 55 310 (1911), and, therefore, mootness prevent decision merits. In my view stronger application principle. At stake here fundamental right vote—the 'preservative basic civil political rights,' Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 562, 1362, 1381, 12 506 (1964); see also Harper Virginia Board Elections, 383 663, 670, 86 1079, 1083, 169 (1966), peculiarly evasive review. This ordinarily person's standing make mature unless he resident prior Barring resort extraordinary expedients, interval obviously too short exhaustion state administrative remedies completion lawsuit filing federal district court, convening trial, Court.* True, today's virtual foreclosure opportunity definitive judicial measure prevented waiver remedies, preferred calendar position, relaxation rules ripeness permit person showing reasonable certainty moving period. difficulties attend expedients buttress conclusion bar more reason hold presented here. Reaching merits, reverse reasons stated MARSHALL his dissenting opinion, join. 13 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, 14 agree Brother involves problems call traditional concepts appellate important decisions permanently frustrated. 1494, (1969). 15 Indeed, unfortunate consequences rigid cases lower courts well left last challenges relatively requirements. Those may, apparently case, consider themselves bound Court's summary per curiam affirmance Drueding Devlin, 380 125, 807, 792 (1965), aff'g 234 721 (D.C.Md.1964), upheld one-year seems me clear good today. achieving sort, combined misleading precedent, lead indicate briefly merits us. Drueding, tested equal-protection standard ordinary regulations: is, restrictions need bear rational relationship legitimate end. F.Supp., 724-725, citing McGowan Maryland, 366 420, 425, 81 1101, 1105, (1961). 1965 determined made popular vote, exclude persons franchise interest, exclusion least restrictive method desired purpose. 667, 1081, (1966); Kramer Union Free School 15, 395 621, 626-628, 1886, 1888, 1889, 583 Close scrutiny thus demanded Colorado's order President Vice President, certain brought; now, 17 support urged college embodied Constitution contemplates Nation such, rather individual States, each acting community. Hence, goes, legislate ensure electors truly members 18 correct often reaffirmed power require bona fide residents. Carrington Rash, 89, 93-94, 775, 778-779, 675 (1965); supra, 625, 1889. justify explain persons, questioned, than longtime residents.1 19 justification parochial period sufficiently lengthy impress local viewpoint. precisely sort found insufficient Texas' elections servicemen acquired Texas after service. argued military men newly might heart. replied: 20 'But residents, intention making home indefinitely, they, all qualified equal representation. 'Fencing out' sector population way constitutionally impermissible.' 94, S.Ct., 779. Similarly here, arrived Coloradans national outlook retain viewpoint characteristic region come, impermissible depriving chance influence suffice argue durational ensures gain knowledge issues, distinguished indoctrination attitudes. can assumed residents know less about old play small today hardly considered interest sufficient entirely Americans most leaders. Cf. District, 633, 1892. necessary purity elections. impurities feared ('dual voting' 'colonization') involve evil—voting nonresidents, singly blocks. difficult how protects nonresident voting. qualifications would-be voter registers until days Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 49-4-2(1) (Supp.1965). time, establishes qualifications, including residence, oath. 49-4-17 nonresident, seeking easily falsely swear presently resident. additional element sworn—the duration residency—adds discernible protection 'dual 'colonization' willing lie. Insofar appears laws, record makes attempt go behind voter's oath determine qualifications. See 49-13 Moreover, effort voting, taking used eliminating borderline between mere visitors, approach overbroad. many instances tell whether while service genuine intent remain residency. Thus, went, convenience avoiding factual determinations justified blanket doubtful category. rejected 'conclusive presumption' approach, noting 'States casually deprive individuals remote State.' 96, 780. Harman Forssenius, 528, 542-543, 1177, 1186, 50 (1965). 25 conclusive presumption recently established purposes simply overbroad vote. cases, community qualify similar determination older inhabitant.2 That among arrivals denying settled faith. 26 Finally, logistics preparing close registration itself. serves establishing lists closed barred Yet needs. And, argued, conceded required, arbitrary matter be. 27 unconvincing judged needs day. 49-4-2(2) Appellants statute. What separate voters, 20-day cutoff date, months—by admendment 49-24-1 (1963). logistical save show further No made. violates Protection Clause, entitled reversal requirement. (1963) provided: 'Eligibility vote.—Any citizen shall attained age twenty-one years, resided next preceding offers county city ninety days, precinct fifteen duly registered required provisions article, vice-presidential electors.' appellant went office appellee Beals August request wife allowed Upon denial application, wrote Secretary ask despite September Office informed permitted Apart special provision relating requires desiring general, primary, 49-3-1(1)(c) continued: 'Should Plaintiffs win eventual appeal, Defendant Officials directed count Plaintiffs' votes normally cast valid ballots; lose final destroy ballots cast. sought-for preserved date question.' opinion issued 29, proceedings probably plaintiff sued come levels Pope Williams, 193 573, 48 817 (1904), specifically reserved Id., 575. decided 'compelling interest' test franchise. instance, applying ballots, bought car Department Motor Vehicles, drivers' licenses, eldest child private nursery school; further, taken permanent employment firm Springs.

Category: 1