Reed v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Cambridge, 71-1380.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71-1380.,71-1380.
• Citation: 459 F.2d 121
• Parties: Roger REED et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF CAMBRIDGE et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

459 F.2d 121 (1972)

Roger REED et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF CAMBRIDGE et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 71-1380.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard February 24, 1972.

Decided May 1, 1972.

Harvey M. Burg, with whom Samuel Knight and Matthew Feinberg, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellants.

Michael J. Lack, Boston, Mass., with whom Philip M. Cronin and Withington, Cross, Park & Groden, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellees.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.

McENTEE, Circuit Judge.

This controversy arises out of a refusal by the Cambridge Board of Election Commissioners to register as eligible voters certain students attending school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Plaintiff students on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated brought suit for injunctive and declaratory relief contending that the Board imposed unconstitutional requirements and burdens in determining that they were not residents. On October 27, 1971, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction directing the Board to register them in time for the November 2, 1971, municipal election. After an expedited hearing before a magistrate, the court ordered the provisional registration of all but three of the named plaintiffs. These three appeal.

The threshold question here is whether this is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction or from a final judgment. If the only issue before us were the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction providing for provisional registration, the passing of the November 2, 1971, election without the votes of these appellants, so far as we know, having been decisive in any race would undoubtedly moot the present appeal. Very possibly sensitive to this, but apparently also anxious to advance their cause as quickly as possible, appellants argue that a final judgment was entered below implicating the merits of the entire controversy. They have accordingly, unwarrantedly in our view, leaned on an inaccurate observation by the magistrate in characterizing the proceedings below.

The complaint in the underlying action was filed on October 27. A motion for a preliminary injunction was filed the same day and an order to show cause issued. Because of the imminence of the election a hearing was held on Saturday, October 30, before a magistrate. At this hearing testimony was presented, and on Monday, November 1, the magistrate filed an extensive memorandum of findings and an order granting the motion for provisional registration as to twenty-one of the named plaintiffs. The memorandum was approved by the court on the same day. The court did not have before it what ultimately amounted to over 100 pages of testimony.

The magistrate's memorandum recited the following:

"The students filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. However, the case was heard on the merits."

The court's blanket approval presumably endorsed this recitation. There is nothing, however, to indicate that the case was heard on the merits,¹ or that the parties thought so.² To the exent that it purported to be a decision on the merits, particularly a final decision involving findings of fact without even notice and opportunity to be heard by a judge, it was what we have previously described as "a laying on of hands," Rainha v. Cassidy, 454 F.2d 207 (1st Cir., 1972), and an abnegation of judicial authority by the court entirely contrary to the provisions of Article III. The extent to which even preliminary injunctions should be passed on in this manner deserves very careful consideration at some future date.

We may add that there is no final judgment on the merits in the record. All that appears is an order to the effect that appellants not receive an injunction requiring them to be registered as voters in time for the November 2 election, from which they promptly appealed. Appellants blur, consciously or otherwise, the question of our jurisdiction of the merits with the statement in their brief that "said Order is in fact and operates as a `final judgment' by the court below with respect to their rights." Even if, as appellants suggest, they have presented all of their evidence and a magistrate, confirmed by the court, stated that the case was heard on the merits, at a minimum there was no formal order dismissing the case. Moreover, it is clear that even if appellants presented all their evidence, appellees did not. Indeed, with respect to the constitutional claims that are now argued at exceptional length by the appellants, appellees did not present any evidence whatever, and had no occasion to. The record is entirely inadequate, as well as unfair to appellees, to resolve the difficult statutory and constitutional issues raised by this case.³ Nor should we hasten to preclude the Board from having an opportunity to evolve procedures to meet the needs created by the adoption of the twenty-sixth amendment.⁴See Richardson v. Wright, 405 U.S. 208, 92 S.Ct. 788, 31 L.Ed.2d 151 (1972); see also Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108, 91 S.Ct. 1803, 29 L.Ed.2d 352 (1971). We therefore conclude that the district court has not reached the merits of the present controversy and that the present appeal from denial of provisional registration is now moot.

Although this technically disposes of all issues actually before us at the present time, one further observation may be appropriate. Plaintiffs in the...