MacDougall v. Green, 48 C. 1406.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 48 C. 1406.,48 C. 1406. |
| Citation | 80 F. Supp. 725 |
| Parties | MacDOUGALL et al. v. GREEN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
H. B. Ritman, Richard F. Watt, Edmund Hatfield, Milton T. Raynor, and Bernard Weissbourd, all of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., of Illinois, and V. W. McIntire, of Danville, Ill., for defendant Board of Election Commissioners of Danville.
Ross E. Millett, of Sycamore, Ill., for defendant County Clerk of DeKalb County.
Leon M. Despres, of Chicago, Ill., for Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
Before KERNER, Circuit Judge, and SULLIVAN and IGOE, District Judges.
This cause coming on to be heard on the plaintiffs' verified complaint as amended and motion for an interlocutory injunction, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and having considered the briefs of the parties and of amicus curiae and being fully advised in the premises, does make and adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact.
1. This is an action of a civil nature brought under § 2201 of the Declaratory Judgment Act, c. 151, 28 U.S.C.A., effective September 1, 1948.
2. The individual defendants are citizens and residents of the State of Illinois; they claim to be candidates of a new political party known as "The Progressive Party" for United States senator from the State of Illinois, Electors for president and vice president of the United States from the State of Illinois and for certain public offices of the State of Illinois; they seek the entry of an interlocutory injunction that the defendants Dwight H. Green, Arthur C. Lueder and Edward J. Barrett, Governor, Auditor of Public Accounts, and Secretary of State of Illinois, respectively, be directed to certify to the respective county clerks of the State of Illinois, as the candidates of The Progressive Party, the names of the persons named in the complaint.
3. That on August 16, 1948, a declaration of intention to form a new State wide political party and a petition to nominate candidates for that party was filed by and on behalf of The Progressive Party pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 of the Illinois Election Code; said nominating petition, together with the statements of candidacy of the individual candidates, was presented to the Governor, the Auditor of Public Accounts, and the Secretary of State for the State of Illinois for endorsement and filed in the office of Secretary of State as required by law; that on August 21, 1948, certain legal voters of the State of Illinois filed objections to said nominating petition and thereafter on August 26, 1948 the State Officers Electoral Board, the body provided for by law to hear and pass upon objections to nominating petitions filed pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WMCA, Inc. v. Simon
...district courts definitely assumed jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of such state enactments. In MacDougall v. Green, D.C.N.D.Ill., E.D., 1948, 80 F.Supp. 725, aff'd 1948, 335 U.S. 281, 69 S.Ct. 1, 93 L.Ed. 3, the statutory court considered the complaint, filed Findings of Fa......
-
WMCA, Inc. v. Simon
...curiam D.C.N.D.Ga.1950, 89 F.Supp. 672; MacDougall v. Green, 1948, 335 U.S. 281, 69 S.Ct. 1. 93 L.Ed. 3, affirming per curiam D.C.N.D.Ill.E.D.1948, 80 F.Supp. 725; Colegrove v. Barrett, 1947, 330 U. S. 804, 67 S.Ct. 973, 91 L.Ed. 1262, dismissing per curiam appeal from United States Distric......
-
Moore v. Shapiro
...State's voters are now registered in five counties compared with 59% in the same five counties in 1948. (Complaint, par. 34; MacDougall v. Green, 80 F.Supp. 725). Plaintiffs allege that 93.4% of the voters reside in 49 counties compared with 87% in the same 49 counties in 1948. (Complaint, ......
-
Dougall v. Green
...of various cities, and the County Clerks of various counties. The District Court found want of jurisdiction and denied the injunction 80 F.Supp. 725. Appellants invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § The action arises from the finding of the State Office......