Ventre v. Ryder
| Citation | 176 F. Supp. 90 |
| Decision Date | 12 August 1959 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 7473. |
| Parties | Emile K. VENTRE, M. D.; Harry J. Kron, Jr., and Mrs. Geraldine Welch v. Ruby C. RYDER, Registrar of Voters for the Parish of St. Landry; and Mrs. Ruby T. Blanchard and James Lionel Joubert, Deputy Registrars of Voters for the Parish of St. Landry. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana |
Dubuisson & Dubuisson, Opelousas, La., W. M. Shaw, Homer, La., for plaintiffs.
J. Y. Fontenot, Opelousas, La., for defendants.
This action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is brought by plaintiffs in behalf of themselves and of all persons properly qualified and registered to vote in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana.
The complaint, after detailing defendants' status as that of Registrar and Assistant Registrars, alleges that defendants and their predecessors in office registered thousands of persons to vote in congressional and other elections who did not meet the qualifications requisite for electors under Louisiana law; that defendants have engaged in a scheme or conspiracy to prevent plaintiffs and others from removing these illegal registrants from the rolls prior to the forthcoming state and congressional elections; that defendants have carried out this conspiracy by certain overt acts, including the refusal to permit plaintiffs to file more than a token number of affidavits of challenge and refusal to permit plaintiffs to photocopy the records of defendants' office.
On the day and hour set for hearing, defendants filed an answer setting up various defenses, including exceptions to the jurisdiction. Counsel for both sides agreed that these exceptions should be referred to the merits.
The facts are not in serious dispute and the Registrar was the only witness1. A number of issues concerning Louisiana law and the application and/or lack of application of that law by the Registrar are involved. In actions of this nature, mere pleaded conclusions asserting the violation of constitutional rights do not necessarily confer jurisdiction. Therefore, it is fitting and proper that we ascertain what the Louisiana law is and what defendants are accused of doing, have done, and are doing:
(1) The voter registration application provided by the Louisiana Constitution was devised as a test of the applicant's intelligence and literacy. That is why the Louisiana Constitution specifically provides that the form must be entirely written, dated and signed "* * * in the presence of the registration officer or his deputy, without assistance or suggestion from any person or any memorandum whatever, other than the form of application hereinafter set forth * * *." Louisiana Registrars do not have the authority to assist persons applying to register in filling out these applications and/or to permit others to help them2.
In recent years these two provisions of Louisiana law have been more honored in the breach than in the observance. The defendant Registrar and her predecessors in office (by custom and usage) have for many years rendered assistance and have not required the application blanks to be filled out in detail. This has resulted in the presence on the registration rolls of many voters not registered in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the statutes. Recently the defendants have adopted the policy of following the law in these particulars. The Registrar assures us that she will continue to do so. We have no reason to doubt the lady.
(2) (a) Plaintiffs, together with other voters of St. Landry, recently inaugurated a program of canvassing the registration rolls of the parish and challenging those persons allegedly not registered in accordance with the law. This so-called "clean-up" or "purge" is sanctioned by Louisiana law3. The method of removal of illegally registered voters set up in each of the two cited sections is unique in that it all but eliminates discretionary action on the part of the Registrar and reduces her duties to those purely ministerial in character. If the challenging affidavit is in proper form and states a ground sufficient in law, the Registrar must proceed to take the prescribed action (Thomas v. McElveen, La.D.C., Parish of Washington, April 1959; the Flournoy case decided in Winn Parish on August 10, 1959). Here, the Registrar has refused to accept more than twelve or thirteen challenges a day and it would, at this rate (according to plaintiffs), take in excess of two years to "clean up" the rolls4. This action on the part of the Registrar denies to plaintiffs a legal right that they have under the Louisiana law. The Louisiana law which creates the duty on the part of the Registrar also creates a specific right in behalf of the plaintiffs to enforce that duty in the state court:
(2) (b) Defendant is refusing to send out many of the challenges which were filed with her. This she has refrained from doing, she says, because she does not know who is or who is not an illegally registered voter. She is exercising discretion as to whether or not to send out the challenges at all. Again she is not carrying out the ministerial duties specifically required of her. This action, too, on the part of the Registrar and her assistants, denies to plaintiffs a legal right they have under the Louisiana law. The Registrar's duty in this connection under the law as it is written and as it has been interpreted, is ministerial, the performance of which may be required by the simple process of asking relief in the Louisiana state court under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 18:134, supra.
(3) The Louisiana law requires the Registrar to permit photocopying of the registration rolls when and if she is furnished a petition therefor signed by 25 qualified voters. The petition here was signed by 25 qualified voters (they were not challenged in accordance with law). The Registrar refused permission to photocopy and pegged her refusal on the proposition that the names on the petition did not identically conform with the same names on the registration application. (For example, Mrs. John N. Doe on the petition, and Mrs. J. N. Doe on the registration card.) Technically, her refusal was not improper. She states that when presented with a new petition with identical conformity that the permission to photostat will be granted. Public confidence demands public disclosure. The public has a right to know, and the law recognizes that.
Summarizing the Louisiana law and the Registrar's action, we find:
(a) That she and her assistants are denying to the plaintiffs certain rights that the plaintiffs have under state law to challenge registrants.
(b) That the Registrar and her assistants have in the past rendered assistance to prospective applicants and permitted others to do so.
(c) That the Registrar and her assistants have in the past not required the registration blanks to be filled out in minute detail.
(d) That as a result of the actions of the Registrar and her assistants, many voters who were not registered in accordance with law are presently on the rolls of St. Landry Parish, and will vote in state and congressional elections unless removed5.
(e) As other courts have done, we disregard as mere conclusions the factually unsupported characterizations of the acts of defendant as conspiratorial and discriminatory. There is no conspiracy. Mrs. Ryder is the "boss"; the others follow her instructions. There is no discrimination. It is obvious that the Registrar is not in sympathy with the plaintiffs' efforts and that she is not going to carry out the provisions of LSA:R.S. 18:132 and 18:245, supra, unless compelled to do so by court order.
(f) The state law spells out a summary state procedure to force compliance with 18:132 and 18:245. Plaintiffs have chosen not to pursue their state remedies. They seek relief here, asserting that state courts cannot carry the assurance needed to restore the Registrar's confidence in her right to enforce the state registration laws and that only a firm declaration by a federal court that state registration laws are federal laws, and must be enforced, can restore confidence.
Our consideration of the jurisdictional issue begins with two fundamental propositions, namely: (1) Under our constitutional system, the qualification of voters is a matter committed to the states, subject only to federal constitutional restraints prohibiting discrimination on a count of race, color, sex, etc. Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 24 S. Ct. 573, 48 L.Ed. 817; (2) Clearly, the right of citizens to cast ballots and have them counted at congressional elections, in accordance with applicable state laws, is a right secured by the federal Constitution, and this right, unlike those carried by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, is secured against the action of individuals as well as states6.
Plaintiffs do not assert that they have been denied the right to register, but are asserting that others may exercise the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Alabama v. United States
...of the government of the United States," 189 U.S. at 488, 23 S.Ct. at 642. The finding of no discrimination in both Ventre v. Ryder, W.D.La., 1959, 176 F.Supp. 90, 97, and Tullier v. Giordano, 5 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 1, 4, eliminates those decisions as irrelevant. That leaves only Byrd v. Br......
-
Davenport v. Genesee County
...to a Fourteenth Amendment violation, which could only be established with a showing of discrimination on her part. See Ventre v. Ryder, 176 F.Supp. 90, 94-95 (D.C.La.1959). Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that there is a substantial likelihood that they will succeed on the m......