recognizing that “[vjital rights of association guaranteed by the Constitution” are involved in federal court challenges to party delegate-seating decisions
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “[vjital rights of association guaranteed by the Constitution” are involved in federal court challenges to party delegate-seating decisions
- staying Court of Appeals’ injunction requiring the Democratic convention to seat California delegation selected in winner-take-all primary as mandated by state law
- staying order that political party seat certain delegates at its national convention and expressing “grave doubts” about Court of Appeals’ action in case raising “[h]ighly important” state-action question
- staying Court of Appeals’ injunction requiring the Democratic convention *613 to seat California delegation selected in winner-take-all primary as mandated by state law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
I would deny the stays and deny the petitions for cer-tiorari. The grant of the stays is, with all respect, an abuse of the power to grant one. The petitions for cer-tiorari will not be voted on until October, at which time everyone knows the cases will be moot. So the action granting the stays is an oblique and covert way of deciding the merits. If the merits are to be decided, the cases should be put down for argument. As Mr. Justice Marshall has shown, the questions are by no means frivolous. The lateness of the hour before the Convention and the apparently appropriate action by the Court of Appeals on the issues combine to make a denial of the stays and a denial of the petitions the only responsible action we should take without oral argument.