Wigoda v. Cousins, No. 72 C 1001.
| Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois) |
| Writing for the Court | John R. Schmidt, Steven Franklin Schwab, Wayne W. Whalen, Chicago, Ill., for defendants |
| Citation | 342 F. Supp. 82 |
| Parties | Paul T. WIGODA, individually and on behalf of all other duly elected, challenged and uncommitted delegates and alternates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th Illinois Congressional Districts similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. William COUSINS et al., Defendants. |
| Docket Number | No. 72 C 1001. |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1972 |
342 F. Supp. 82
Paul T. WIGODA, individually and on behalf of all other duly elected, challenged and uncommitted delegates and alternates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th Illinois Congressional Districts similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
William COUSINS et al., Defendants.
No. 72 C 1001.
United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.
May 17, 1972.
John R. Schmidt, Steven Franklin Schwab, Wayne W. Whalen, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff originally brought this action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, seeking 1) to have himself and others similarly situated declared duly elected delegates and alternates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention (the "Convention") in accordance with Illinois law and therefore entitled to take their seats at the Convention; and 2) to enjoin the defendants from taking any action that would interfere with plaintiff's functioning as delegates and alternates to the Convention. Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, alleging that the case was properly removable to a Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1443. Plaintiff then moved to have the case remanded back to the State Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. Inasmuch as we find that there is no basis for federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of this dispute, we grant plaintiff's motion and remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Before proceeding with an examination of the possible jurisdictional bases for this cause of action, a more detailed statement of the relevant facts is necessary. In a primary election held in Illinois on March 21, 1972, plaintiff and the class he purports to represent (the "uncommitted delegation") were elected as "uncommitted" delegates and alternates to the Convention. That they were elected in accordance with the provisions of the Illinois Election Code relating to the selection of delegates to a national convention of a political party, Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 46 §§ 7-14 and 7-14.1, is not disputed. On March 31, the defendants filed with the Acting Chairman of the Credentials Committee of the 1972 Democratic National Convention (the "Credentials Committee") a "Notice of Intent to Challenge" the seating of the members of the plaintiff class as delegates and alternates to the Convention.
Thereafter, the defendants additionally filed a "Statement of Grounds of Challenge Against the Proposed `Uncommitted' Delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention from the Districts Encompassing the City of Chicago" in which they alleged that the members of the plaintiff class were selected in violation of the Rules adopted by the Democratic National Committee and incorporated into the Call of the 1972 Democratic National Convention which set forth standards and qualifications to be met in the selection of delegates from each of the states to the Convention (the so-called "McGovern Rules"). Specifically, the defendants contend that "blacks, Latin Americans, women and young people are grossly underrepresented on the Proposed Delegation and in all Chicago party affairs" and that "the Proposed Delegation was slated, endorsed, and supported by the party organization without open slate-making procedures, without published rules and by party officials chosen prior to 1972."
On April 19, plaintiff filed a civil action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department, Chancery Division, asking the court: 1) to declare plaintiff a proper class representative of the "uncommitted" delegates and alternates to the Convention; 2) to declare
On April 24, plaintiff moved to have the case remanded to the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. In addition, plaintiff moved for an order temporarily restraining defendants from proceeding with their challenge to the Credentials Committee. Both motions were taken under advisement pending a determination whether we have jurisdiction. On May 2, plaintiff submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from proceeding before the Credentials Committee.
After discussion with plaintiff's counsel in open court, the Court ruled on the question of enjoining defendants pending a determination of the jurisdictional question. The motion for a preliminary injunction and the motion for a temporary restraining order were denied on May 2, inasmuch as there had been no showing of immediate and irreparable harm as required by Rule 65(b), Fed.R. Civ.P., and because the underlying claim for relief in the case—an order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Correll v. Herring, Civil Action No. 3:16CV467
...of its delegates to the various party conventions without regard to party policy, an obviously intolerable result.’Wigoda v. Cousins , 342 F.Supp. 82, 86 (N.D.Ill.1972). Such a regime could seriously undercut or indeed destroy the effectiveness of the National Party Convention as a concerte......
-
Ripon Soc., Inc. v. National Republican Party, Nos. 74--1337
...6 Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 489--90, 95 S.Ct. 541, 549, 42 L.Ed.2d 595 (1975) (footnote omitted), citing Wigoda v. Cousins, 342 F.Supp. 82, 86 (N.D.Ill.1972). The Court also noted recent proposals that the parties use regional or national primaries to choose these nominees. 419 U.S. ......
-
Wigoda v. Cousins, No. 58096
...took the motion to remand under advisement and on May 18, 1972, he issued an opinion finding no basis for federal jurisdiction, D.C., 342 F.Supp. 82. Judge Will, however, also entered a 10--day stay of his findings in order to enable the defendants to appeal therefrom. Subsequently the U.S.......
-
Larouche v. Fowler, No. CIV. A. 96-1816.
...each of the fifty states could establish delegate qualifications without regard to national party policies) (quoting Wigoda v. Cousins, 342 F.Supp. 82, 86 (N.D.Ill.1972)). For example, if the Democratic Party of Maine, an uncovered jurisdiction, adopts a voting qualification, it need not ap......
-
Correll v. Herring, Civil Action No. 3:16CV467
...of its delegates to the various party conventions without regard to party policy, an obviously intolerable result.’Wigoda v. Cousins , 342 F.Supp. 82, 86 (N.D.Ill.1972). Such a regime could seriously undercut or indeed destroy the effectiveness of the National Party Convention as a concerte......
-
Ripon Soc., Inc. v. National Republican Party, Nos. 74--1337
...6 Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 489--90, 95 S.Ct. 541, 549, 42 L.Ed.2d 595 (1975) (footnote omitted), citing Wigoda v. Cousins, 342 F.Supp. 82, 86 (N.D.Ill.1972). The Court also noted recent proposals that the parties use regional or national primaries to choose these nominees. 419 U.S. ......
-
Wigoda v. Cousins, No. 58096
...took the motion to remand under advisement and on May 18, 1972, he issued an opinion finding no basis for federal jurisdiction, D.C., 342 F.Supp. 82. Judge Will, however, also entered a 10--day stay of his findings in order to enable the defendants to appeal therefrom. Subsequently the U.S.......
-
Larouche v. Fowler, No. CIV. A. 96-1816.
...each of the fifty states could establish delegate qualifications without regard to national party policies) (quoting Wigoda v. Cousins, 342 F.Supp. 82, 86 (N.D.Ill.1972)). For example, if the Democratic Party of Maine, an uncovered jurisdiction, adopts a voting qualification, it need not ap......