Irish v. Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota

• Decision Date: 13 August 1968
• Docket Number: No. 19412.,19412.
• Citation: 399 F.2d 119
• Parties: William J. IRISH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEMOCRATIC-FARMER-LABOR PARTY OF MINNESOTA et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

399 F.2d 119 (1968)

William J. IRISH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEMOCRATIC-FARMER-LABOR PARTY OF MINNESOTA et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19412.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

August 13, 1968.

Hyman H. Cohen, St. Paul, Minn., for appellants; Gordon C. Moosbrugger, Michael J. Healy, Kenneth E. Tilsen, and John F. Niemeyer, St. Paul, Minn., on the brief.

John D. French, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees; Lawrence D. Cohen, St. Paul, Minn., David L. Graven, John P. Karalis, and Jonathan Lebedoff, Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief.

Leonid Hurwicz pro se as a nonadverse appellee.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and VOGEL and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs-appellants here complain that the process of selection of delegates from Minnesota to the 1968 National Democratic Convention has violated the one man-one vote principle enunciated in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963), Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968), and many other cases. Judge Neville in a detailed opinion has denied relief and dismissed the complaint on the merits. 287 F.Supp. 794 (D.Minn.1968). Because of the shortage of time and the fact that the National Convention officially begins on August 26, 1968, we have expedited the appeal, have set the matter for hearing at St. Paul, Minnesota, on August 13, 1968, have heard arguments on that day and have made our decision forthwith.

No Minnesota statute is under attack. Chapter 202 of M.S.A. concerns primary elections and nominations and certain sections of that chapter, namely, §§ 202.20 to 202.27, inclusive, relate to a political party's state convention and precinct caucuses. It is conceded, however, that the 1968 Democratic-Farmer-Labor precinct caucuses in Minnesota, as statutorily authorized and actually conducted, honored the one man-one vote principle. Thus, no challenge is made to the selection at the precinct caucuses of delegates to the DFL county conventions. It is beyond the precinct caucus, namely, at the levels of the county, district and state conventions where actions resulting in malapportionment are alleged to have taken place.

The courts, generally and consistently, have been reluctant to interfere with the internal operations of a political party. Lynch v. Torquato, 343 F.2d 370 (3 Cir. 1965); Democratic-Farmer-Labor State Central Committee v. Holm, 227 Minn. 52, 33 N.W.2d 831, 833 (1948). In our opinion this attitude of non-interference is an appropriate starting point. We recognize, however, that the Supreme Court and other tribunals, in cases having racial factors, have in fact, on constitutional principles, thwarted invidious discrimination in party primaries and in other political maneuvers. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944), and Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953), are examples of this. There is nothing here, however, with racial overtones or anything akin thereto. What is complained of here and now is something which permeates party operations from the constitutionally prescribed Electoral College down to, but not including, the precinct caucus level in Minnesota.

There are many obstacles for these plaintiffs to overcome before this court may conclude that the relief they request is proper. We need not pass upon the question of standing which has been conceded by the defense. We are willing to assume that these plaintiffs have standing. Neither do we choose to decide this case on the asserted issue of laches.

We hold simply that there is nothing of constitutional significance in the alleged malapportionment here above the precinct caucus level. What was done at the precinct level was in full accord with the one man-one vote principle. What took place thereafter was not the product of malapportionment among the people as the electorate. See Sailors v. Board of Educ., 387 U.S. 105, particularly footnote 6 on p. 109, 87 S.Ct. 1549...