Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffclass actiondue processappellantappellee

appellant

Related Cases

Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 90 S.Ct. 200, 24 L.Ed.2d 214

Facts

The appellants moved from California to Colorado in June 1968 and sought to register to vote in the upcoming presidential election. They were denied registration because they did not meet the six-month residency requirement in place at that time. They filed a class action lawsuit against Colorado electoral officials, challenging the constitutionality of the residency requirement under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privilege and Immunities Clauses of the Constitution. After the Colorado Legislature amended the residency requirement to two months, the case was deemed moot.

The appellants moved from California to Colorado in June 1968. They sought to register to vote in the ensuing November presidential election, but were refused permission because they would not on election day have satisfied the six-month residency requirement that Colorado then imposed for eligibility to vote in such an election.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs could challenge the constitutionality of Colorado's six-month residency requirement for voting in presidential elections after the requirement was amended to two months.

The appellants object now to the two-month residency requirement as vigorously as they did to the six-month rule in effect when they brought suit.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a case must present a live controversy to avoid mootness, and that plaintiffs cannot represent a class of which they are no longer a part.

The case has therefore lost its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law.

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs, having satisfied the amended two-month residency requirement, were no longer part of the class of disenfranchised voters they sought to represent. The recent legislative change rendered the case moot, as there was no longer a present controversy regarding the six-month requirement. The court emphasized that it could not issue advisory opinions on abstract legal questions.

But apart from these considerations, the recent amendatory action of the Colorado Legislature has surely operated to render this case moot.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case with directions to dismiss it as moot.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the cause as moot.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the appellees, the electoral officials of El Paso County, Colorado, as the court found the case moot due to the legislative change in the residency requirement.

The judgment of District Court vacated and case remanded with directions.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 111 S.Ct. 2513, 115 L.Ed.2d 586, 59 USLW 4773, 18 Media L. Rep. 2273

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487, 63 USLW 4625

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725

Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 105 S.Ct. 1916, 85 L.Ed.2d 222, 53 USLW 4468

Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15