Fair v. Dekle
| Decision Date | 21 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 22688.,22688. |
| Citation | 367 F.2d 377 |
| Parties | Jim FAIR, Appellant, v. John DEKLE, Supervisor of Registration, and James F. Taylor, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Warren M. Cason, John W. McWhirter, Jr., Tampa, Fla., for appellee James F. Taylor, Jr.
W. Crosby Few, Tampa, Fla., for John Fannin, successor in Public Office to appellee John Dekle.
Before BROWN, GEWIN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.
Appellant became a candidate for Supervisor of Registration of Hillsborough County, Florida, in the May, 1964, Democratic primary, and was defeated.
Florida law (F.S.A. § 99.021(1)) requires any candidate in a primary election to swear a party loyalty oath (1) that in the last preceding general election he voted, if at all, for 90 per cent of those of the party's candidates who faced opposition, (2) that he has not been a member of any other party for two years preceding the current primary election, and (3) that he pledges to vote for 90 per cent of those of the party's candidates who face opposition in the coming general election, and, if he is elected, during his term of office. The appellant made such an oath.
Appellant then sought to re-register and change his affiliation from Democratic to Independent on September 24, 1964, but his request was denied by the appellee Dekle because Florida law further does not allow a voter to change his registered party affiliation during the period starting thirty days before the primary and expiring after the general election. F.S.A. § 97.111.
Appellant then brought suit on September 30 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, seeking an injunction allowing him to re-register as an Independent, and freeing him from the bonds of his party loyalty oath. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
On November 3, 1964, the general election was held. In Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895), the plaintiff sued to secure the right to vote in an election of delegates to a state constitutional convention. The election was held before the case reached the Supreme Court, and therefore that court dismissed the case because no relief could be granted by it. Post election relief was similarly denied in Munoz v. Amador, 340 F.2d 590 (5 Cir. 1965). See also Fair v. Adams, 233 F.Supp. 310 (N.D.Fla.1964). Insofar as it concerns the November, 1964, election, the appellant's cause is moot.
Nor has the appellant stated a valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Vowell
...supra § 2759 at 789 citing Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111, 82 S.Ct. 580, 7 L.Ed. 2d 604 (1962) and Fair v. Dekle, 367 F. 2d 377, 378, cert. den., 386 U.S. 996, 87 S.Ct. 1316, 18 L.Ed.2d 344 (5th Cir.) (1966). Unfortunately, the "full bodied record" in this aspect ......
-
National Foundation v. City of Fort Worth
...and not merely academic or speculative as in Troy State University v. Dickey, 5th Cir. 1968, 402 F.2d 515, 516, and Fair v. Dekle, 5th Cir. 1966, 367 F.2d 377. The revised Chapter 32 still contains the provisions exempting religious and fraternal societies which solicit from their own membe......
-
Bynum v. Burns
...and of no immediate consequence to the parties." For other cases denying post election relief because of mootness, see Fair v. Dekle, 367 F.2d 377 (5 Cir. 1966); Munoz v. Amador, 340 F.2d 590 (5 Cir. 1965). For cases granting post election relief see, Hamer v. Campbell, 358 F.2d 215 (5 Cir.......
-
Troy State University v. Dickey
...359, 361. Bearing in mind that the "issue posed should be real and substantial and not merely academic or speculative," Fair v. Dekle, 5 Cir. 1966, 367 F.2d 377, 378, it seems obvious that this case has become moot because this Court cannot be called upon "to decide arguments after events h......