Webster v. Mesa, 74-2750
| Citation | 521 F.2d 442 |
| Decision Date | 01 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-2750,74-2750 |
| Parties | John M. WEBSTER, Appellant, v. Tomas R. MESA, Jr., Executive Director of the Elections Commission, Territory of Guam, and the Elections Commission, Territory of Guam, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before BARNES, KILKENNY, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
John M. Webster, who was barred from the 1974 legislative primary ballot by the Director of Elections of Guam, brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief under 48 U.S.C. § 1421b(u), an act of Congress making available to residents of Guam the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While the completion of the election makes injunctive relief moot, declaratory relief is still available. The question otherwise would be " capable of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 124-125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 713, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973).
Webster complains that section 2916 1 of the Govt.Code of Guam deprives him of equal protection because, Inter alia, the nominating petitions of independent candidates are subject to having names stricken if the names are those of voters who have previously signed nominating petitions for any of the partisan candidates seeking one of the 21 seats in the Guam Legislature.
The 21 Senators are elected at large. Candidates in the general election are the 21 Democrats and 21 Republicans who received the highest vote totals in the primary election, plus any independent candidates who qualified under Govt.Code of Guam § 2933.
Webster filed a timely nomination petition as an independent for the June 1974 primary election. His petition was signed by 250 qualified voters (the number required by Govt.Code of Guam § 2914). However, some of the signatures on Webster's petition also appeared on the petitions of one or more partisan candidates seeking a nomination for Senator. The partisan candidates' petitions were prior in time to Webster's petition.
The defendant notified Webster that because of duplication in petition signatures, his name could not be placed on the primary ballot.
The district court concluded that "Section 2916 does place independents in a different class and discriminates against independents * * *." However, it held that the discrimination served an important state interest, that it was not invidious, and that § 2916 was constitutional.
On its face, § 2916 appears to prohibit a voter who has signed a partisan candidate's petition from signing an independent's petition for the same office. This application causes no problem in the usual office which can have only one incumbent. If, however, 21 at-large senatorial positions are open for election, and a voter signs the petition of one or more partisan candidates, that voter may not sign any petition for an independent who may wish to seek one of the 21 seats in the same election. This provision not only discriminates against independent candidates, it deprives voters of an important right to nominate the candidates of their choice. This discrimination serves no "compelling state interest". See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968).
Williams struck down Ohio laws which favored the Republican and Democratic parties and frustrated new political parties seeking Ohio ballot positions. 393 U.S. at 32, 89 S.Ct. 5. Ohio had contended that it had absolute power to regulate the selection of candidates, citing Article 2, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The court held that "no State can pass a law regulating elections that violates the Fourteenth Amendment's command that 'No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.' " 393 U.S. at 29, 89 S.Ct. at 10. The right of voters to cast their votes effectively was said to be "among our most precious freedoms". 393 U.S. at 30, 89 S.Ct. 5.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sample v. Johnson
...not moot because "serious questions raised"), vacated, 444 U.S. 1063, 100 S.Ct. 1003, 62 L.Ed.2d 745 (1980); Webster v. Mesa, 521 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1975) (action against law prohibiting voter who has signed partisan candidate's petition from also signing independent's petition for same......
-
Baldwin v. Redwood City
...(1975 ed.).7 See Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 n. 8, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974), and cases there cited; Webster v. Mesa, 521 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir. 1975). The "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine provides an independent ground for holding this case not to be ......
-
Kidwell ex rel. Penfold v. Meikle
...930, 97 S.Ct. 1548, 51 L.Ed.2d 773 (1977) (ripeness doctrine particularly applicable to challenges to agency action); Webster v. Mesa, 521 F.2d 442, 444 (9th Cir. 1975) (refusing to hear challenge to election qualification statute on ground that no candidate had ever been disqualified Plain......
-
Davids v. Akers, 75-3515
...1973, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35, L.Ed.2d 147; Baldwin v. Redwood City, 9 Cir., 1976, 540 F.2d 1360, 1365; Webster v. Mesa, 9 Cir., 1975, 521 F.2d 442, 443; Rosenfield v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 1971, 444 F.2d 1219, Here, although the Thirty-second Legislature has adjourned, ......