Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Leguennec, 76-1517

Citation580 F.2d 1006
Decision Date25 August 1978
Docket NumberNo. 76-1517,76-1517
PartiesCHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, San Francisco Council, League of United Latin American Citizens, Lue She Tom, Tak Lan Chan Huey, Rose Yuen, Nilsa M. Matos and of themselves and those similarly situated, Appellants, v. Lawrence J. LEGUENNEC, Individually and in his official capacity as Registrar of Voters, et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Peter B. Sandman (argued), of Legal Aid Society, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

Judith L. Teichman, Deputy City Atty. (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before GOODWIN and HUG, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI *, District Judge.

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:

Chinese and Spanish American minority plaintiffs appeal the dismissal without prejudice of their complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of their rights under the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 Et seq.

The complaint alleged that the City of San Francisco failed to meet the requirements of the Act in city elections in November and December of 1975. Plaintiffs assert: (1) no action had been taken to provide voter registration materials and voter affidavits in any language other than English; (2) no multilingual ballots or voting machines were provided; (3) an unequal burden was placed on language-minority voters who desired election information.

The Act, in pertinent part, provides:

"Prior to August 6, 1985, no State or political subdivision shall provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process, including ballots, only in the English language if the Director of the Census determines (i) that more than 5 percent of the citizens of voting age of such State or political subdivision are members of a single language minority and (ii) that the illiteracy rate of such persons as a group is higher than the national illiteracy rate. * * * " 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a(b).

On September 3, 1975, the Director of the Census designated San Francisco as a political subdivision covered by § 1973aa-1a(b). On October 21, 1975, appellants filed their complaint.

The district court dismissed the action from the bench "as premature", adding that there was "no indication that the defendants are acting other than in good faith". The dismissal was based on the court's belief that the city was entitled to reasonable time to meet the requirements of the newly-enacted amendments.

The determination, in early September, that the city was subject to § 1973aa-1a(b) left the city only a few days in which to make the contracts and accomplish the changes necessary to modify its election procedures to comply with the Act before the November elections. However, shortage of time will not necessarily shield election officials from the diligent assertion of rights under the Act. It is Congress's intention to eradicate voting discrimination with all possible speed. Briscoe v. Bell,432 U.S. 404, 410, 97 S.Ct. 2428, 53 L.Ed.2d 439 (1977). The law imposes a duty on parties having grievances based on discriminatory practices to bring their complaints forward for preelection adjudication. Toney v. White, 488 F.2d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 1973). Therefore, the complaint was not "premature", even though it may have been highly inconvenient. The city could have been protected by the conditions of any injunction from unreasonable or impossible burdens.

The city describes the district court's dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of good faith as "eminently reasonable". While good faith has an abstract element of equity about it, and may be a defense under some circumstances to an action brought under civil rights acts for Damages, it is not a bar to an action for injunctive and declaratory relief. Eslinger v. Thomas, 476...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Olagues v. Russoniello
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 3 September 1985
    ... ... Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Lation ... Voter ... Leguennec, 580 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S ... ...
  • Olagues v. Russoniello
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 26 August 1986
    ...activity ceases if subsequent events show that the activity "could not reasonably be expected to recur," Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Leguennec, 580 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1129, 99 S.Ct. 1047, 59 L.Ed.2d 90 (1979), unless there is a possibility of "conti......
  • Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 26 June 2017
  • Ariz. Democratic Party & Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 3 November 2016
    ...Soules v. Kauaians for Nukolii Campaign Committee, 849 F.2d 1176, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Leguennec, 580 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1978)). By waiting to file a complaint until after the deadline, the Committees frustrated the very purpose of this l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT