Document: 389 U.S. 1 88 S.Ct. 55 19 L.Ed.2d Robert C. BOHANNAN, Jr.v.ARIZONA ex rel. Darrell F. SMITH, Attorney General. No. 204. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1967. 9, 1967 John P. Frank, for appellant. Smith, Atty. Gen. Arizona, and Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Gen., appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dispense with printing dismiss is granted. also granted appeal dismissed want a properly presented federal question. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, whom BLACK joins, dissenting. 3 Appellee applied in court below writ quo warranto. petition asked that appellant be ousted 'from office he presently holds as Member State Board Public Welfare [that] his [be declared] vacant so successor may qualified provided by law.' referred its brief Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 38-447, which provides any official who violates statutory prohibition against having an interest contracts made him capacity 'shall punished fine not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment state prison five years, forever disqualified from holding this state.' Appellee, however, only require 'to show cause why position should declared found unlawfully hold said office, 4 Appellant filed quash application on ground under scheme removal could imposed upon had been guilty criminal proceeding violating provisions. That was denied. then answered application, acknowledging certain mortgage transactions between Arizona Retirement Associated Mortgage Investment Company took place while member former president director latter. Oral argument denied, case being decided briefs. 5 Up point, therefore, matter question law—it contended statutes did permit prior conviction. court, ruled excluded but 'forever public Arizona.' To reach conclusion, construed conviction if were official, 'judicial determination fact disqualification rests,' sanction imposed. warranto before held offer sufficient fact' exclude bar permanently office. 6 In rehearing challenged constitutional grounds court's use civil disqualify He asserted statute, permitted permanent barring person lacking vital elements due process. construed, constituted bill attainder since it operated inflict punishment without safeguards judicial trial. 7 It seems obvious until interpreted statute appellant's allow show-cause order discharged present had, practical matter, no reason raise claims presents Court. ask declaration expressly judgment entered case, 12-2045, does mention section 'when defendant adjudged usurping intruding into franchise privilege, shall given privilege. impose exceeding two dollars, which, when collected, paid treasury.' 8 If arises because unexpected construction highest timely raised purposes review rehearing. Brinker-hoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 673, 50 451, 74 L.Ed. 1107. 9 A barred future raises issues simple not. Such sweeps broadly destroy individual's right livelihood field greatest competence. serious nature such demands rules procedural process complied strictly. I believe are substantial below. Probable jurisdiction noted, at very least we take hear argued, post-poning merits.

Category: 8