Document: 409 U.S. 1 92 S.Ct. 2718 34 L.Ed.2d Lawrence O'BRIEN et al., Petitioners,v.Willie BROWN al. No. ____. Thomas E. KEANE Petitioners, v. NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY Application Nos. A—23 and A—24 (In re Case 72—34 72—35) (At July 7 Special Term, 1972). Decided 7, 1972. PER CURIAM. Yesterday, 6, 1972, the petitioners filed petitions for writs of certiorari to review judgments United States Court Appeals District Columbia Circuit in actions challenging recommendations Credentials Committee 1972 Democratic National Convention regarding seating certain delegates convention that will meet three days hence. 2 In 72—35, recommended unseating 59 uncommitted from Illinois on ground, among others, they had been elected violation 'slatemaking' guideline adopted by party 1971. A complaint action was dismissed Court. The rejected contentions unseated violated their rights under Constitution States. 3 72—34, 151 271 California committed law Senator George McGovern State's 'winner-take-all' primary system. concluded winner-take-all system mandate 1968 calling reform delegate selection process, even though such primaries not explicitly prohibited rules 1971 implement mandate. On this case 4 Accompanying were applications stay pending disposition petitions. 5 present novel questions importance litigants political which national parties nominate candidates office vote policies programs. particular ruled are have yet be submitted Party. Absent judicial intervention, could decide accept reject, or with modification, proposals its Committee. 6 This is now asked these important resolve them within remaining prior opening sessions scheduled convened Monday, 10, concludes it cannot limited time give issues consideration warranted final decision merits; we therefore take no at time. 8 call a weighing basic factors: (a) whether irreparable injury may occur absent stay; (b) probability error holding merits controversies appropriate federal courts; (c) public interests affected operation Appeals. 9 stay, denies traditional power pass credentials question. grant other hand, foreclose Convention's giving respective both cases relief sought courts. 10 We must also consider absence authority supporting intervening internal determinations party, eve convention, delegates.1 No cited us any court has undertaken interject itself into deliberative processes convention; up gives support intervention circumstances presented here, involving as do, relationships great delicacy essentially nature. Cf. Luther Borden, How. 1, 12 L.Ed. 581 (1849). Judicial area traditionally approached caution restraint. See Irish Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Minnesota, 399 F.2d 119 (CA8 1968), affirming 287 F.Supp. 794 (D.C.Minn.1968), cited; Lynch Torquato, 343 370 (CA3 1965); Smith State Exec. Comm. Dem. Ga., 288 371 (N.D.Ga.1968). Ray Blair, 214, 72 654, 96 894 (1952). It understood since our first came being voluntary associations individuals proper forum determining intra-party disputes shall seated. Thus, involve claims judiciary heretofore thought lie control parties. Highly concerning justiciability, state action, if so reach Due Process Clause unique context. Vital association guaranteed involved. While unwilling undertake resolution constitutional without full briefing argument adequate opportunity deliberation, entertain grave doubts taken 11 light availability Committee, process complaining might obtain courts, lack precedent extraordinary granted Appeals, large interest allowing function free supervision, conclude stayed. recognize well preclude recommendation But, nearly century half themselves determined conventions. If altered courts exercise equity powers, should done pressures surrounding brought Court, expedited Court.2 13 stays granted. 14 Applications 15 Mr. Justice BRENNAN view available difficult resolution. He concurs certiorari. 16 WHITE would deny stays. 17 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 18 I is, all respect, an abuse one. voted until October, everyone knows moot. So granting oblique covert way deciding merits. decided, put down argument. As MARSHALL shown, means frivolous. lateness hour before apparently combine make denial only responsible oral 19 MARSHALL, whom DOUGLAS joins, 20 These two separate challenge exclusion party's Illinois, selected result elections excluded allege, essence, refusal due voters who right participation electoral Constitution.1 21 Two assertions central made California. First, contend California's election law, approved election,2 relied casting ballots, validly presidential candidacy McGovern. Second, claim after ballot planned carried out campaigns relying validity laws, votes cast expectation winner command entire delegation, changed reneged earlier approval that, doing, committee impaired duly Fourteenth Amendment.3 22 ground 'selected outside arena by, given massive endorsement of, organization Chicago specifically clearly identifiable apparatus (certain districts), favored organization, written publicized notice permit interested electors participate.'4 They argue restrictions placed officials violate First Amendments. suggested another reason why delegation insufficient number Negroes, women, representatives classes persons. alleged establishment 'quota' Amendment.5 23 denied sets plaintiffs there justiciable question it.6 reversed held suits justiciable. unanimously delegates, 2—1 upheld belated change constituted law. 24 losing seek review, today grants partial form holds, effect, incorrect ruling 'political questions' properly posture timing require defer underlying disputes. agree. 25 each cases, counted election. related deprived participate methods Both entitled resolution, most heard. 26 controversies, then faced them. There appear choices: now; Committee's report either accepted over. 27 can doubt, my view, time, live controversy between Nevertheless, because vanish premature point. correct respect injunctive relief, but appropriateness declaratory judgment. 28 Should lower court, compelled wait makes seat never again practicable presented. Once rules, Hobson's choice refusing hear all, hearing possibly stopping midstream. far more serious intrusion democratic than 29 longer—until over ultimately sustain delegates' merits, declare null void repeated. dispute concerns machinery elect President denied, possible become drastic remedy delay avoided costs. 30 therefore, obvious me act. significant regard request declaratory, injunctive, relief. judgment milder injunction, cf. Perez Ledesma, 401 82, 111, 91 674, 690, 701 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring part dissenting part). particularly circumstances, protect threatened same issuance injunction avoided. Hence, believe prayer do now. 31 stays, then, seems rely least ripe decision, reasons stated above. addition, suggests inappropriate claims. point appears quite apart mere matter timing, question,' otherwise nonjusticiable, decisionmaking party. That misconceives nature purpose doctrine. Half ago, Holmes, writing unanimous clear 'political,' jurisdictional sense, merely involves operations party: 32 'The objection subject-matter suit little play upon words. Of course petition alleges seeks recover private damage. damage caused recovered hardly doubted hundred years, Ashby White, Ld.Raym. 938, 320, recognized Wiley Sinkler, 179 58, 64, 65, 17, 45 84; Giles Harris, 189 475, 485, 639, 47 909. Code, § 24(11), (12), (14); Act March 3, 1911, c. 231; 36 Stat. 1087, 1092 (Comp.St. 991). defendants' conduct wrong plaintiff allow recovery denying determine result.' Nixon Herndon, 273 536, 540, 446, 71 759 (1927). 33 doctrine fashioned deal very different problem, nothing case. said Baker Carr, 369 186, 82 691, 663 (1962), characteristic lead conflict one coordinate branches government; decline deference separation powers. U.S., 217, S.Ct., 710; see Powell McCormack, 395 486, 518—549, 89 1944, 1962, 1979, 491 (1969). Neither Executive nor Legislative Branch Government purports jurisdiction asserted cases. Apart forum, suggested—the Party—and assuredly branch government owe meaning powers political-question Moreover, 'judicially manageable standards' lacking required 710. requires Amendment and, valid, correctly applied facts members accordance announced not, violates candidates. range regularly capable 35 second threshold objection, however, raised obstacle determination Even inherently places few, any, none those arguably implicated allegations here. below failed disagree. 1. agree governmental subject requirements process. was, step designed select candidate President; include pledged general intertwined every step, authorizing conducting it, adopting use regarded integral election, Classic, 313 299, 61 1031, 85 1368 (1941), quoted infra, 15—16, regulate standards elementary 37 California, least, charged responsibility challenged (albeit unsuccessfully) prohibit rules. somewhat disingenuous, unless seriously contended nominee convention. For long recognizes adopts fruits actually conducted, infused how vociferously protest. render 'private' strip character disapproving action. Monroe Pape, 365 167, 172—187, 81 473, 476—484, 492 (1961). 38 when status obliged manner consistent demands Because does question, likewise refrain expressing views sufficient say beyond claimants claim. 39 2. did federally protected vote, counted, election.7 40 course, established protects impairment basis race color, Const.Amdt. XV, invidious classification, e.g., (1962); Dunn Blumstein, 405 330, 995, 274 (1972). With elections, enjoys broader protection. Oregon Mitchell, 400 112, 260, 272 (1970), Black line precedents proposition Congress ultimate supervisory congressional based Art. I, 4, Constitution. E.g., Ex parte Siebold, 100 371, 717 (1880); Yarbrough, 110 651, 152, (1884); Mosley, 238 383, 904, 1355 (1915); (1941). precedents, secured right. 41 went status: 'It less elections.' 124, 264. To conclusion, he II, interpretation Burroughs States, 290 534, 54 287, 78 484 (1934), 'the concept supreme officers.' 124 n. Black's analysis decisive, presidential, Federal 42 protection extends well. sustained indictment charging conspiracy 'to injure oppress citizens enjoyment privileges Laws namely, (1) qualified ballots choice, (2) run Congressman favor nomination cast.' Id., 308, 1034. critical hold, first, second, includes primary. 43 'Where procedure where fact effectively controls elector his primary, included Article And just machinery, voter exercises invariably, sometimes determines representative.' 318, 1039. 44 reasoning equal force Where claimed impaired. heard decided certainly mechanism lieu plenary consideration. unfortunate like quickly substantial dispute, allegation fundamental leading threatened, duty lies making decisions, avoiding 46 arises discrimination contest single State. Terry Adams, 345 461, 73 809, 97 1152 (1953); Allwright, 321 649, 64 757, 88 987 (1944). Argument 3; entered 5. Papers here 6. couch arguments various ways, boil two: i.e., choice. communication Commission Structure Delegate Selection Committeeman officer found merit claims, Report Hearing Officer 2, June 30, 3—4. Judge indicated quota raise questions. judges quotas. MacKinnon disagreed, believing establish were, unconstitutional. above, hence U.S.C. 1983. Alternatively, Government, theory acquiesced administration parties; implied deprivation rights, Bivens Six Unknown Named Agents etc., 403 388, 1999, 619 (1971). Finally, interferes right; existence depend terms 1985(3), against kinds interference, Griffin Breckenridge, 88, 1790, 338

Category: 8