Brockington v. Rhodes, No. 31
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 396 U.S. 41,90 S.Ct. 206,24 L.Ed.2d 209 |
| Parties | Paul M. BROCKINGTON, Appellant, v. James A. RHODES, Governor of Ohio, et al |
| Docket Number | No. 31 |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1969 |
v.
James A. RHODES, Governor of Ohio, et al.
Mandamus proceeding to compel Governor of Ohio and others to place plaintiff's name on ballot for November, 1968 election as an independent candidate for United States House of Representatives from a particular district. The Court of Common Pleas denied writ of mandamus, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District affirmed the judgment, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial constitutional question, and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court held that case was moot because congressional election was over.
Judgment of Supreme Court of Ohio vacated and cause remanded for such proceedings as that court might deem appropriate.
Benjamin Sheerer, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Robert D. Macklin, Columbus, Ohio, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant sought to run in the November 1968 election as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives from the Twenty-first Congressional District of Ohio. His nominating petition bore the signatures of 899 voters in the congressional district, a little over 1% of those in the district who had voted in the gubernatorial contest at the last election. The Board of Elections ruled that the appellant's petition was insufficient to put his name on the November ballot, because it did not contain the signatures of 7% of the
Page 42
qualified voters, as Ohio law then required.1 The appellant petitioned the Court of Common Pleas for a writ of mandamus, challenging the 7% requirement as 'unreasonably high and excessive, * * * disproportionate when compared to the 100 signatures required for party candidates,2 * * * arbitrary and capricious, * * * [and] an invidious discrimination without any relationship to constitutionally justified ends * * *.' He urged as the proper standard for determining the sufficiency of his nominating petition the 1% requirement that had prevailed for over 60 years until the enactment of the 7% rule in 1952. He prayed for an immediate order restraining the Board of Elections from printing the election ballots; also for a writ of mandamus commanding the Board 'to certify the sufficiency of relator's nominating petition' and directing the appellees 'to do all things necessary to place relator's name upon the ballot as an independent candidate for United States House of Representatives from the Ohio Twenty-First Congressional District in the November 5, 1968, general election * * *.' His suit did not purport to be a class action, and he sought no declaratory relief.
On August 22, 1968, the Court of Common Pleas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Valeo, No. 76-1825
...Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council v. Shultz, supra note 3, 143 U.S.App.D.C. at 278, 443 F.2d at 693. 21 In Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 90 S.Ct. 206, 24 L.Ed.2d 209 (1969), a plaintiff's challenge to a signature requirement for nomination was ruled to be moot. The Court found th......
-
Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Bowen, Nos. 85-3839
...of the litigation, would have been able to vote under the new rule, the case was moot. 30 On the other hand, in Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 90 S.Ct. 206, 24 L.Ed.2d 209 (1969), the Court found that an intervening reduction of a signature requirement (to get on a ballot) from 7% to 4......
-
Briscoe v. Kusper, No. 18390.
...of defendants may be deemed of a continuing nature, and nothing prevents rendition of meaningful relief. Cf. Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 43, 90 S.Ct. 206, 24 L.Ed.2d 209; Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 90 S.Ct. 200, 24 L.Ed.2d 214. Similarly, defendants do not contend that this Court i......
-
Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, No. 71-1773
...problem arises because the election has passed. Three cases in which this issue appeared have been held moot, Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 90 S.Ct. 206, 24 L.Ed.2d 209 (1969); Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 90 S.Ct. 200, 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (1969); and Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan, 406 ......
-
Clark v. Valeo, No. 76-1825
...Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council v. Shultz, supra note 3, 143 U.S.App.D.C. at 278, 443 F.2d at 693. 21 In Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 90 S.Ct. 206, 24 L.Ed.2d 209 (1969), a plaintiff's challenge to a signature requirement for nomination was ruled to be moot. The Court found th......
-
Blawis v. Bolin, No. Civ. 72-402 Phx.
...the case was remanded to this Court, sitting alone, for a determination of the prayer for declaratory relief. See Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 43, 90 S.Ct. 206, 208, 24 L.Ed.2d 209 (1969). The case is submitted on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and all the pleadings and bri......
-
Hall v. Secretary, No. 16-16766
...that they were politically active individuals who would have the opportunity to do so every four years. Also, in Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 90 S.Ct. 206, 24 L.Ed. 2d 209 (1969) (per curiam), the Court held that the plaintiff’s ballot access challenge was moot because the election w......
-
Alameda Conservation Association v. State of Cal., No. 22961.
...complaint and the Title Company would have no interest in a quiet title proceeding. The matter is therefore moot. Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 90 S.Ct. 206, 24 L. Ed.2d 209 (1969); McKee & Co. v. First National Bank of San Diego, 397 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1965) (per STANDING With respec......