# Olagues v. Russoniello

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 26, 1986 · 797 F.2d 1511

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8943599

## Case

- **Full name:** Jose J. OLAGUES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Joseph P. RUSSONIELLO, individually and in his capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Defendants-Appellees Jose J. OLAGUES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Hispanic Coalition for Human Rights, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Latino Voter Registration Education Project v. Joseph P. RUSSONIELLO, individually and in his capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California O'Malley, William A., individually and in his capacity as District Attorney for Santa Clara County Underwood, Lon, Individually and in his capacity as registrar of voters for Contra Costa County Smith, Arlo, individually and in his capacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 26, 1986
- **Citations:** 797 F.2d 1511; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28989
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Sneed
- **Judges:** Hug, Pregerson, Sneed
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated by Russoniello v. Olagues, 484 U.S. 806 (1987).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8943599

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “voluntary cessation of the challenged activity is insufficient to render a case moot if the legality of the challenged practices’ is still disputed because ‘[t]he [official] is free to return to his old ways’ ” (quoting W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 362, 73 S.Ct. a…
- holding that U.S. Attorney's vote fraud investigation that targeted recently registered, foreign-born voters who requested bilingual ballots in Spanish or Chinese was subject to strict scrutiny in an equal protection challenge because it amount ed to ethnic discrimination
- holding that an organization whose members were “potential targets of future prosecutions” had standing to seek injunctive relief
- recognizing that federal law prohibits the intentional intimidation of persons voting or aiding someone else to vote

## Opinion text

SNEED, Circuit Judge,
concurring in Circuit Judge Wallace’s dissent:
I concur in Judge Wallace’s dissent. I write only to underscore Judge Wallace’s dissent.
The United States Attorney focused upon (1) recently registered, (2) foreign born voters, (3) who requested bilingual ballots. Only Spanish and Chinese bilingual ballots existed. The purpose was to determine if any such persons were not United States citizens. Non-citizens were not entitled to vote.
The heart of the majority opinion appears in the following lines:
“The instant case as a practical matter, however, involves a specific classification of Spanish-speaking and Chinese immigrants. Thus, while a non-English-speaking classification is facially neutral with respect to ethnic group classification, the classification challenged here is not, because for all practical purposes it is a classification based on race and national origin.” Maj. Opinion, ante, p. 1521.
No further explanation is offered. The United States Attorney’s target was non-citizens attempting to vote. That is not a suspect class. True, his investigation was aimed at a possibly large pool of offenders. That Hispanics and Chinese make up that pool is the consequence of geography, history, and the Voting Rights Act, not the discriminatory bias that the majority ascribes to the fact. One does not have to hold a doctorate in history to know that voting by non-citizens has occurred in our nation’s history from time-to-time. Had the plaintiffs’ alleged that the United States Attorney commenced his investigation to abridge the right of Chinese and Hispanic citizen to vote, an action under the Voting Rights Act would have been alleged. The majority correctly holds no such claim was alleged.
The classification employed by the United States Attorney was crafted to discover fraudulent voting. It was “for all practical purposes” nothing more.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8943599. Public record. Not legal advice.