Walters v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 12 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-653. |
| Citation | 396 F. Supp. 808 |
| Parties | Lloyd R. WALTERS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edwin W. EDWARDS, etc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Louis R. Koerner, Jr., Koerner & Babst, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
Kendall L. Vick, Asst. Atty. Gen. of La., New Orleans, La., for defendants.
Before WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and BOYLE and RUBIN, District Judges.
Plaintiff Walters, suing on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks a judgment declaring that L.S.A.R.S. 18:270.2041 is unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute.
Jurisdiction is conferred on the court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.
The following facts are stipulated by the parties:
1. The class which plaintiff represents is composed of those persons in St. Tammany Parish who have changed their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat within six months preceding the date of the Democratic primary election of March 23, 1974 and within six months preceding the date of the Democratic primary election of May 4, 1974. The class as set forth above is eighty-nine persons in number or more and is accordingly so numerous that joinder or all members is impractical; that the questions of law and fact, as set forth hereinafter, are common to all of the members of the class; that these questions of law and fact are predominating in the complaint; that these questions are typical of the claims of the class; and plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
2. Plaintiffs and the class are citizens of the State of Louisiana and residents of and domiciled in St. Tammany Parish. All of them have changed their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat within six months of the date of the Democratic primary election, March 23, 1974 and the Democratic primary election of May 4, 1974. After plaintiffs changed their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, they were notified by letter that they would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary of March 23, 1974 because of R.S. 18:270.204 and the opinions of the Attorney General. In addition, the Registrar of Voters of St. Tammany Parish caused to be published in the two Slidell newspapers the contents of the letter which explained that those who had changed their party affiliation within six months of the Democratic primary election of March 23, 1974 would not be allowed to vote. Plaintiffs desire to vote and participate in the Democratic primary scheduled for March 23, 1974, and the Democratic primary election scheduled for May 4, 1974.
3. In a previous case, Fontham v. McKeithen, D.C., 336 F.Supp. 153 (1971) the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana entered into a stipulation, before the United States Supreme Court, that: "This suit has been settled by the parties and the statutes attacked as unconstitutional by the appellants are no longer being enforced by officials of the State of Louisiana." One of the statutes referred to was R.S. 18:270.204.
4. In accordance with the Attorney General's stipulation an opinion dated October 5, 1972 was rendered which concluded R.S. 18:270.204 was probably unconstitutional.
5. Included within the class is a subclass of persons, who are citizens of the State of Louisiana and residents of and domiciled in the Parish of St. Tammany, who have changed their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat within six months prior to the filing of the complaint in reliance on the stipulation and opinion of the Attorney General dated October 5, 1972, which resulted from the matter entitled: Fontham v. McKeithen.
6. On February 7, 1974, only 14 days before the registration rolls closed in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, the Attorney General issued opinion No. 74-204 which rescinded the previous opinion and upheld the constitutionality of R.S. 18:270.204. Even though the opinion was dated February 7, 1974, the Registrar of Voters for St. Tammany Parish did not receive it in his office until the 14th of February, 1974, 6 days from the date the registration rolls were closed in St. Tammany Parish.
7. Prior to February 14, 1974, plaintiffs were informed by the Registrar of Voters for St. Tammany Parish that they would be able to change their party affiliation and vote in the Democratic Primary election of March 23, 1974.
The case has been submitted to the court for adjudication on the parties' stipulation of facts and memoranda.
The plaintiff has sued on behalf of a class consisting of certain registered voters in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, similarly situated. Whether or not the action is maintained as such a class action, the result we reach in this case will be effective throughout Louisiana.
Plaintiffs allege that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional because it is an unreasonable limitation on the right to vote unjustified by a compelling state interest.
They further allege that the statute is overinclusive because it prohibits voting by those who genuinely wish to change their party affiliation, and on the other hand it is underinclusive because it is not fully effective to prevent "raiding" of one party's primary election by adherents of the opposing political party.
Finally, plaintiffs claim the statute results in a denial of equal protection because it does not require voter registering for the first time or those registering with a political party after having been registered as independents to observe the six month waiting period.
The issue of the constitutionality of this statute was previously litigated in Fontham v. McKeithen, D.C., 336 F. Supp. 153 (1971) before a three-judge court consisting of Circuit Judge Wisdom and District Judges West and Gordon.2 In that case, the three-judge court in an opinion by Judge West held that "there is a reasonable relation between the terms of L.S.A.-R.S. 18:270.204 and the State's interest in protecting the integrity of political parties within the State." Fontham v. McKeithen, supra at 158. Judge Gordon concurred, holding that the plaintiffs had shown no reason other than inconvenience or lack of knowledge of the law to justify their failure to change political parties in time to vote in the primary election of their new party.
Judge Wisdom, in his dissenting opinion, concluded that the "compelling state interest" test was the correct standard of review to use in evaluating the statute, rather than the "rational basis" test used by the majority. Applying the former standard, Judge Wisdom found that the statute discriminated against persons registering a party affiliation and in favor of independents. He also stated that if the prevention of raiding is a compelling state interest then "the six month waiting period is an unconstitutionally imprecise means of accomplishing the state's objective." Fontham v. McKeithen, supra at 174. He pointed out that the waiting period may reduce raiding, but only by penalizing those who wish to change their party affiliation for legitimate reasons.
While Fontham was on appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties stipulated that the Louisiana statutes attacked as unconstitutional were no longer being enforced. The appeal was dismissed on January 8, 1973.3
On February 7, 1974, the Attorney General of Louisiana recalled his prior opinion that L.S.A.-R.S. 18:270.204 was unconstitutional and should not be enforced. Relying on Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1973) which was decided subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal in Fontham, the Attorney General concluded that the Louisiana statute should continue to be enforced. This suit was filed on March 11, 1974, challenging the Attorney General's directive.
Since Fontham, the Supreme Court has decided Rosario v. Rockefeller, supra, decided March 21, 1973, and Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973), decided November 19, 1973, which involve issues similar to those presented here. In Rosario, the court upheld a New York statute which required an eight to eleven month delay between a change in party registration and voting in the primary election of the new party. In Kusper, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional an Illinois statute which prohibited one from voting in the primary election of a political party if he had voted in the primary of any other party within the preceding 23 months.
Rosario and Kusper are the only cases in which the Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of voting statutes similar to the one in question here.
The initial question to be determined by the court is the proper standard to be used in evaluating the Louisiana statute. Two differing standards have been utilized in evaluating a state's classification of its citizens. When the legitimate state interest test is applied, a classification will be upheld if rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. When the compelling state interest test is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bismarck Public School Dist. No. 1 v. State By and Through North Dakota Legislative Assembly
...with the exercise of a fundamental right, the strict scrutiny test is used to evaluate its constitutionality.); Walters v. Edwards, 396 F.Supp. 808 (E.D.La.1975) (If classification of voters into two groups significantly interferes with fundamental right, such classification must meet compe......