Court Opinion

ID: 9420555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:55:10.10127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:25.795500
License: Public Domain

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting in No. 371.
The order denying the motion to advance and expedite No. 371 in all probability deprives this appellant of an opportunity to have a final decision on the grave constitutional questions which he presents. This means that before the Court can consider the case in the course of ordinary procedure, the election in which he desires to run for Governor will undoubtedly have been held and the controversy thus rendered moot. We cannot agree to deny appellant a hearing in this manner.
The nature of typical election laws is such that only a limited time is available for judicial review. This fact has presented difficulties in this Court before, see Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549, 565; MacDougall v. Green, 335 U. S. 281, 285; Cook v. Fortson, Turman v. Duckworth, 329 U. S. 675, 677, and generally advancement has had to be requested in cases of this nature. MacDougall v. Green, supra; Cook v. Fortson, Turman v. Duckworth, supra; South v. Peters, 339 U. S. 276. Where, as here, a justiciable controversy and substantial federal questions co-exist, the Court can and should advance a determination of the case. There is no showing of lack of diligence *863on appellant’s part. Under the present circumstances the absence of an opinion by the Maryland Court of Appeals is no reason for refusing consideration here. Whatever the Maryland court may later say, appellant has been deprived of his opportunity to become a candidate in the election.