CURRY ET AL.
v.
BAKER, CHAIRMAN OF ALABAMA STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dispute over Alabama's 1986 Democratic gubernatorial runoff, the State Democratic Executive Committee invalidated the vote count after finding the leading candidate had encouraged violations of party crossover voting rules, and certified his opponent as the nominee instead. The Supreme Court denied a stay of the Court of Appeals' reversal of the district court's order for a new election, finding that although the applicants faced irreparable injury, the case's unique circumstances tied to state election law and the absence of recurring issues or circuit conflicts did not justify intervention pending certiorari review.
[1] A stay of mandate pending certiorari will be granted only if there is a reasonable probability that four Justices will grant certiorari, a significant possibility that a…
[2] A court may deny a stay of mandate even if irreparable harm would result if the unique circumstances of the case do not otherwise warrant a stay.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.
This is an application for a stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari. The case involves the legal contest between two candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Alabama.* One of the applicants received a majority of the votes cast in a runoff election held on June 24, 1986. A three-judge court found that the applicant had encouraged widespread violations of a state party rule against crossover voting in the runoff, a rule that apparently has the force of state law. Henderson v. Graddick, 641 F. Supp. 1192 (MD Ala. 1986).
The State Democratic Executive Committee conducted an investigation , concluded that the applicant’s opponent received a majority of the votes legally cast, and certified the applicant’s opponent as the Democratic nominee. The issue, generally stated, is whether the actions of the State Democratic Executive Committee exceeded the bounds of due process. Following state-court litigation, the applicants filed this 42 U.
S. C. § 1983 action in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The District Court found a constitutional violation and ordered a new election.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 802 F. 2d 1302 (1986). The court found no violation of federal law.
This Court rarely grants a stay of mandate pending disposition of the petition for certiorari unless three conditions are met.
First, there must be a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari.
Second, there must be a significant possibility that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous.
Finally, there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if the decision below is not stayed. White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers). This case presents unique facts closely tied to Alabama election law and rules. The applicants concede that this case is unlikely to recur. There is no conflict among the Circuits. It is no doubt true that, absent the runoff election ordered by the District Court, the applicant here will suffer irreparable injury. This fact alone is not sufficient to justify a stay in the unique circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, the application is denied.
*
The applicants are one of the candidates and two persons who voted for him in the runoff.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009)…ble harm, courts cannot dispense with the required showing of one simply because there is a strong likelihood of the other. This is evident in the decisions of Justices [*439] of the Court applying the traditional factors. See, e.g., Curry v. Baker, 479 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1986) (Powell, J., in chambers) (“It is no doubt true that, absent [a stay], the applicant here will suffer irreparable injury. This fact alone is not sufficient to justify a stay”); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 463 U. S. 1315, 1317 (1983) (B…
Authorities Cited
- Curry v. Baker, 802 F.2d 1302 (11th Cir. 1986)
- White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301 (U.S. 1982)