Court Opinion

ID: 9453884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:27:04.88478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:50.931119
License: Public Domain

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
I concur in the conclusion that these cases must be remanded to the district court for evidentiary hearings. However, I point out that the federally-created *527rights of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973i(b) give protection against intimidating, threatening or coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce, “any person for voting or attempting to vote” and “any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.” The terms “vote” and “voting” are defined in 42 U.S.C.A. § 19731(c) (1). The language of the petitions for removal quoted in the opinion of my brother judges is somewhat broader than the federally-protected rights created by § 1973i(b). Of course, the verbiage of the petitions cannot expand the rights that Congress has created, and the district court is bounded by the statutory language in determining whether the appellants’ activities were protected activities. I do not understand that my brother judges propose to broaden the Congressional language.