Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Angel Manuel Cintron Garcia v. Carlos Romero Barcelo, Etc., Partido Popular Democratico
Angel Manuel Cintron Garcia v. Carlos Romero Barcelo, Etc., Partido Popular Democratico, 671 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1982-01-27
- Topic
- general
probability of success need not be shown "where the harm to plaintiffs is particularly severe and disproportionate" | an appellant need not show a substantial probability of success “in the unusual case. . .where the harm to plaintiffs is particularly severe and disproportionate.” | probability of success need not be shown "where the harm to plaintiffs is particularly severe and disproportionate" | balancing weight given treating physician against the entire record
Citator
- Cited by
- 40 opinions
CINTRON-GARCIA v. ROMERO-BARCELO,671 F.2d 1(1st Cir. 1982)
ANGEL MANUEL CINTRON-GARCIA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, APPELLEES, v. CARLOS
ROMERO-BARCELO, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES.
PARTIDO POPULAR DEMOCRATICO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLANTS.
No. 81-1914.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued January 22, 1982.
Decided January 27, 1982.
Eduardo L. Buso, San Juan, P. R., for defendant, appellee, Hector Reichard de Cardona, Secretary of Justice.
Marvin S. Cohen, with whom John M. Gibbons and Stroock, Stroock Lavan, Washington, D.C., were on memorandum for plaintiffs, appellees.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BREYER, Circuit Judges.
I
[2] The Constitution of Puerto Rico provides that its House of Representatives shall be comprised of 51 members, 40 of whom shall be selected by election from single-member districts and 11 of whom shall be selected at large. The at-large representatives are the 11 persons obtaining the most votes in a Commonwealth-wide election — one in which each voter can vote for only 1 representative. Article III, Section 2 and Section 3.SeeGarcia Passalacqua v. Tribunal Electoral,105 D.P.R. 49 (1976). Should an at-large seat fall vacant in between the quadrennial elections, the President of the House is to appoint a successor "upon recommendation of the political party to which belonged the . . . Representative causing the vacancy, with a candidate selected in the same manner as that in which his predecessor was selected."Constitution of Puerto Rico,Article III, Section 8.
[3] In the general election held on November 4, 1980, Fernando J. Tonos Florenzan, a member of the PDP, was elected an at-large representative. Subsequently, he was disqualified because he was 23 years old — 2 years younger than the minimum age the Constitution prescribes. Article III, Section 5. His seat was declared vacant.Tonos Florenzan v. Bernazard,111 D.P.R. ___, 81 JTS 78 (1981).
[4] On December 10, 1981, before his successor could be selected, 8 registered voters — plaintiffs here — filed suit alleging that the replacement procedure violates theFirst,FifthandFourteenthAmendments to the United States Constitution because it does not provide for a by-election open to all voters regardless of party. They sought a declaratory judgment, an order compelling a by-election and, subsequently, a temporary restraining order ("TRO").
[5] The district court, while denying the TRO, quickly held a hearing and, on December 14, 1981, it issued a preliminary injunction effectively holding the seat vacant until it could decide the constitutional issue. Defendants appealed. Subsequently, on January 5, 1982, it denied a request to stay the injunction pending appeal. Defendants, noting that the House is divided evenly between the two major parties (25-25) and arguing that the House could not function properly, sought a stay from this court pending decision on their appeal. The issues were briefed effectively by all parties on an expedited schedule and oral argument was heard on January 22, 1982. As the parties agree, the question of whether we should stay the injunction pending appeal raises the same issues as the appeal itself. Hence, we here decide the appeal — the validity of the preliminary injunction.
II
[6] In determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction, the court normally considers four criteria, namely, "(1) that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (2) that such injury outweighs any harm which granting injunctive relief would inflict on the defendant; (3) that plaintiff has exhibited a likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the granting of the injunction."Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Bellotti,641 F.2d 1006,1009(1st Cir. 1981) (quoting Women's CommunityHealth Center, Inc. v. Cohen,477 F. Supp. 542,544(D.Me. 1979)). While the application of these criteria to the facts of a particular case ordinarily lies within the sound discretion of the trial courts,Grimard v. Carlston,567 F.2d 1171,1173(1st Cir. 1978), we will reverse a trial court when it has applied an improper standard, or where it has misapplied the law to particular facts.Amalgamated Transit Union v. Commonwealth ofMassachusetts,666 F.2d 618at 645 (1st Cir. 1981);PlannedParenthood League of Massachusetts v. Bellotti, supra.That is to say, we will reverse where the record plainly reveals that the underlying facts as reasonably found by the court, viewed in light of the proper standard, could not support the injunction's issuance. Such is the case here.Page 3
A
[7] As the criteria listed above indicate, in deciding whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate, a district judge must engage in a balancing of harms. A preliminary injunction should in the usual case not issue unless the harm to plaintiff, in its absence, outweighs the harm to defendant that it may cause. The district court wrote that the requisite harm is to be found in the fact that allowing the PDP-selected replacement to take his seat pending resolution of this legal controversy would "moot" the case. It is wrong on this point. This controversy would remain real despite the seating of a replacement — at least until the election of a new representative at the next general election in 1984. Litigation could continue in this case just as it has in the related case ofPartido Popular Democratico v. Gobernador,111 D.P.R. ___, 81 JTS 41 (1981), where the Supreme Court of the United States has allowed the replacement representative for District 31 to be seated while it passes on the Constitutional validity of the process through which he was chosen.1Should plaintiffs eventually prevail, in either case, presumably the seats at issue will be declared vacant just as was the seat of Tonos Florenzan.
[8] The district court also found irreparable harm in the fact that, if plaintiffs later win, the voters would have been subject to laws enacted with the help of an unconstitutionally-selected legislator. This harm would seem at least equally balanced, however, by the interim harm that an injunction would have caused defendants if they later win, for in that case, those who voted for Tonos Florenzan in light of his party affiliation would wrongly have hadnorepresentative,seep. 7 and n. 5infra.The PDP would have been deprived of what otherwise appears to be a one-vote majority leaving the House deadlocked with the Governor a member of the major rival party. Indeed, viewed from the point of view of the political parties, the harm to one caused by an injunction "wrongly" (as the case turns out) withheld would seem exactly balanced by the harm to the other caused by an injunction "wrongly" issued. And, the harm to some voters through the possible enactment of laws with the participation of a "wrongly" appointed legislator would seem at the least counterbalanced by the harm to others caused by failure to pass laws (or the passage of other laws) brought about by "wrongly" keeping a seat vacant during the January — April legislative session.
[9] We are aware of no special factors tilting the balance in favor of plaintiffs. To the contrary, the facts that for many years legislators have been chosen in accordancePage 4with the challenged constitutional provisions, and that the Supreme Court of the United States has allowed another legislator facing a similar constitutional challenge to sit while that challenge is resolved, (seenote 1supra), suggests that there is no emergency requiring an immediate injunction. Plaintiffs' ingenious argument that the injunction simply preserves the status quo overlooks the fact that "status quo" in this context should encompass the normal functioning of the legislature and electoral processes in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Puerto Rico. Be that as it may, the district court finding that the harm to plaintiffsoutweighsthat likely imposed upon those whom the injunction affects adversely, is clearly erroneous.
B
[10] We shall go next to plaintiffs' claim that they are so clearly right on the merits as to warrant injunctive relief even if the harms are no better than evenly balanced.Cf. Delaware RiverPort Authority v. Transamerican Trailer Transport, Inc.,501 F.2d 917,924(3d Cir. 1974). We reject this claim, for we believe that it is defendants, not plaintiffs, who have shown a likelihood of success on the merits.2
[11] Plaintiffs' claim that Article III, Section 8 is unconstitutional rests upon two arguments. First, they argue that it violates theFirst,FifthandFourteenthAmendments to the Constitution for a state (or for the Commonwealth) to fill a legislative vacancy by appointment rather than through a by-election — at least where the next general election may be as much as three or four years away. In support, they cite reapportionment cases such asReynolds v. Sims,377 U.S. 533,554,84 S.Ct. 1362,1377,12 L.Ed.2d 506(1964), stressing the constitutionally protected "right of all qualified citizens to vote in state as well as in federal elections;" they also refer to British and American by-election practice at the time the Constitution was written and to other authority suggesting that the right to vote in elections for state legislators is protected by the federal constitution.But cf. Minor v. Happersett,88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 176, 178,22 L.Ed. 627(1875);San AntonioIndependent School District v. Rodriguez,411 U.S. 1,35n. 78,93 S.Ct. 1278,1297n. 78,36 L.Ed.2d 16(1973). Second, they argue that in any event neither a state nor the Commonwealth constitution can require the appointment of a person selected by one political party. To do so, they assert, would unconstitutionally discriminate against members of the other political parties, for it may well allow them no voice whatsoever in the selection of the person who will represent them in the legislature. In support of this proposition, they citeWilliamsv. Rhodes,393 U.S. 23,89 S.Ct. 5,21 L.Ed.2d 24(1968),Kramer v. Union Free School District,395 U.S. 621,89 S.Ct. 1886,23 L.Ed.2d 583(1969), and other authority that holds or suggests that statutes denying the franchise to certain citizens will be closely scrutinized and probably struck down when access to the ballot is limited because of political belief or party affiliation.
[12] We are not convinced by these lines of argument for three sets of reasons. First, as plaintiffs admit, none of these authorities directly considers whether it is constitutional to appoint a successor to fill an interim legislative vacancy. According to the undisputed assertion of the defendants, at least 21 states allow legislative vacancies to be filled by the appointment of a successor who will serve until the next general election or the end of the predecessor's term. Of these, at least 12 require that the appointee be a member of the same political party as his predecessor; and four others allow the political party itself to make the selection. When this type of provision has been challenged, the courts, with one exception, have upheld its validity.See, e.g.,Page 5Patterson v. Burns,327 F. Supp. 745,749,755(D.Haw. 1971) (three judge court) (vacancy in the Hawaii senate; "Plaintiff urges that his district would effectively be malapportioned were the governor permitted to appoint a senator to fill the vacancy. . . . [T]he court finds this argument to be without merit . . . .");Kaelin v. Warden,334 F. Supp. 602,606-08(E.D.Pa. 1971) (three judge court) (fillings of vacancies by appointment of a candidate belonging to the party of his predecessor sustained);Wilson v. Oklahoma CityCouncil,347 F. Supp. 306,308(W.D.Okl. 1972) ("no authority has been . . . found which declares unconstitutional any state law which directs the filling of a vacancy in public office by appointment rather than by an immediate election").3
[13] These courts have reasoned that (1) the long history of filling vacancies by appointment, (2) the need to preserve the political balance obtained in previous general elections, (3) the expense and related inconvenience of calling special elections, (4) the uncertainty about the extent to which, or when, by-elections (with their typically lower turnout, dependency upon timing and different political strategies) are fairer alternatives than waiting until the next general election, (5) the need to assure a single party time to carry out a program, and other similar factors, indicate the wisdom of allowing the states themselves to decide whether, and when, to fill interim vacancies by appointment or by by-election. There is no reason for denying Puerto Rico at least as much discretion or power. That the federal Constitution embodies this wisdom is suggested by the broad language used in relation to the form of a state's government ("the United States shall guarantee to every State . . . a Republican Form of Government," Article IV, Section 4); by theTenthAmendment's reservation to the states of powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and by theabsencein the Constitution of any language requiring the contrary. Indeed, it was believed necessary to insertspecificlanguage into the Constitution providing for by-elections in the case of federal senators.4There is no such language applicable to state legislatures. (Moreover, even as to the "federal official" language which specifically requires a by-election, the federal courts have upheld the validity of interim appointments with twenty-nine months duration.Valenti v. Rockefeller,292 F. Supp. 851(S.D.N.Y.) (three judge court),aff'd per curiam,393 U.S. 405,89 S.Ct. 689,21 L.Ed.2d 635(1969).
[14] Thus, considerations of "statutory" interpretation (the absence of any by-election language addressed to the states), practical considerations (cost along with possibly low turnout at by-elections for state legislature), considerations of judicial capacity (the highly subjective nature of determining when an interim appointment is "too long," given an appointment that is, in any event, bounded by the next general election), and considerations of federalism (state autonomy in determining, within fairly broad limits, the nature of its own political system) all make it likely that these decisions allowing interim appointments to fill state legislative vacancies remain good law.
[15] Second, once it is assumed that an interim appointment process is constitutional, the cases assuring broad participation in the electoral process, such asKramer v. Union School District,supra,andWilliams v.Page 6Rhodes, supra,become far less relevant, for they concern participation in elections that are admittedly, in principle, open to all. Similarly, the cases holding that party allegiance is an impermissible criterion for appointment to state office are of little help.See, e.g., Branti v. Finkel,445 U.S. 507,100 S.Ct. 1287,63 L.Ed.2d 574(1980);Elrod v. Burns,427 U.S. 347,96 S.Ct. 2673,49 L.Ed.2d 547(1976). Here we deal withlegislativeoffice — an office which is highly political in nature and thus central to the function that a political party serves in a democracy. Rather, the issue here is whether selection by the party that won at the preceding election is somehow less consistent with the letter, or with the spirit, of the Constitution than appointment by a governor.
[16] One might argue, as a matter of form, that appointment by a governor is indeed more "democratic" because the governor is himself elected. Yet in practice this is likely not to be so when the governor and former representative are of different parties. In that case the party difference is likely to produce successors of different parties. In such circumstances, we see how the framers of a state constitution might conclude that party selection is more likely to reflect the will of the voters than selection by the governor, for it was the former representative's party, not that of the governor, that won the prior seat. Such a judgment, reflecting a knowledge of political practice, seems perfectly consistent with the basic democratic role of the modern political party — translating the individual wills of myriad voters into a practically achievable program administered by a government that can be held responsible for its performance at the polls.See Schattschneider, Party Government1 (1942);Finer, The Theory and Practice of Modern Government,627 (1960). Although this type of vacancy selection might be unusual, found in only four states and Puerto Rico, it seems no less fair or democratic in principle than the party primary itself — an essential part of our democratic political system.See, e.g.,Cousins v. Wigoda,419 U.S. 477,95 S.Ct. 541,42 L.Ed.2d 595(1975) (limiting the power of the states to enact laws inconsistent with political party's rules).
[17] Third, the considerations favoring the constitutionality of party selection to fill an interim legislative vacancy are particularly strong here. Article III, Section 8 of the Constitution of Puerto Rico is part of a broader constitutional scheme designed to increase the likelihood of minority representation in the legislature.SeeArticle III, Section 7. Section 8 provides that each voter in the election for eleven at-large representatives is to have onlyonevote. Presumably, the two major parties would exhaust most of their voting strength in electing the first 8, 9 or 10 representatives, leaving a minority party with the most votes for the 11th position. Article III, Section 8 complements this provision by stating that in case of vacancy, the party whose candidate won shall select the replacement.
[18] A by-election requirement is inconsistent with the basic purpose of these two articles. A by-election for a minority party vacancy, for example, would almost certainly be won by a major party, for at a by-election (with one position at stake), unlike a general election (with eleven positions at stake), the major party's votes would not be split.
[19] Plaintiffs argue that these provisions have recently achieved actual minority representation only once, in 1972. Regardless, they are reasonable in theory and continue to make minority representation easier to achieve. Similar "limited voting" provisions have been consistently sustained.Hechinger v.Martin,411 F. Supp. 650(D.D.C.) (three judge court) (limited voting scheme for the District of Columbia Council sustained),aff'd per curiam,429 U.S. 1030,97 S.Ct. 721,50 L.Ed.2d 742(1977);LoFrisco v. Schaffer,341 F. Supp. 743(D.Conn. 1972) (three judge court) (limited voting scheme for the State of Connecticut sustained),aff'd,409 U.S. 972,93 S.Ct. 313,34 L.Ed.2d 236(1972);Blaikie v. Power,13 N.Y.2d 134,243 N.Y.S.2d 185,193 N.E.2d 55(limited voting for New York City Council sustained),appeal dismissed,375 U.S. 439,Page 784 S.Ct. 507,11 L.Ed.2d 471(1964);People v. Carpentier,30 Ill.2d 590,198 N.E.2d 514(1964). Apparently, the two major parties, to take maximum advantage of their strength, do not run slates of 11 candidates, but, rather, slates of 6 candidates each. Moreover, because a voter who votes for the party, rather than the individual, automatically votes for the person at thetopof the party list, the party varies the order of candidates on the list from district to district. For example, a party commanding the allegiance of about half the voters, would so make up its list of six that a different person was at the head of the list in districts that each account for about one-sixth of the party's voting strength. This strategy means that a small minority party — free to aggregate its votes across the Commonwealth as a whole — must obtain about eight percent of the vote to elect a representative. The leading minority party (Puerto Rico Independence Party) was not able to obtain more than about five percent of the vote in the last election. Yet, its goal of achieving representation is obviously easier to achieve in the presence of these provisions than in their absence.
[20] Moreover, given the existence of this voting system, it is understandable why the framers of Article III, Section 8 thought that filling a vacancy by party selection would be fairer than requiring a by-election. For one thing, the voting returns show that individual candidates receive enormous number of votes in a few districts and nearly none in others — a fact suggesting thatmost voters vote for the party,giving the candidate vast numbers of votes when he is at the head of the list (and "party" votes count in his favor) and hardly any votes when he is not (and voters must vote separately for him by name).5(See Appendix.) For another thing, how is a by-election to be structured? If it is Commonwealth-wide, many voters (those outside the districts where Tonos Florenzan appeared at the top of the list) will effectively have been given two votes for representative at-large, for the single person they voted for at the general election will also be sitting. Yet, one cannot readily limit the voting to individual Tonos Florenzan districts, for to do so would deprive those few persons outside of those districts who nonetheless voted for him, of a vote for his replacement. To declare a by-election for all 11 seats is obviously unreasonable, for 10 are not vacant. All this helps to explain why the party selection method for fillinginterimvacancies appears reasonable.
[21] In sum, this vacancy-filling system appears to be no less fair or democratic than that found in most states; it is nonetheless tailored to the special concerns and political circumstances of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Certainly, the federal Constitution and the Compact entered into by the Congress with Puerto Rico provide no less autonomy to Puerto Rico than to the states in this regard.See Calero-Toledo v. Pearson YachtLeasing Co.,416 U.S. 663,94 S.Ct. 2080,40 L.Ed.2d 452(1974);Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co.,400 U.S. 41,91 S.Ct. 156,27 L.Ed.2d 174(1970);Cordova Simonpietri Insurance Agency, Inc.v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.,649 F.2d 36(1st Cir. 1981). While we recognize that plaintiffs have raised a serious argument — an argument weighty enough to lead the Supreme Court to note probable jurisdiction in a related case,seenote 1,supra,— at this stage, we believe, for the reasons set out, that defendants, not plaintiffs, are likely to prevail on the merits.6Page 8
C
[22] The final factor, "adverse affect upon the public interest," need not be considered at length. We will, however, note two points. First, in most of the cases in which the courts have examined election practices — including those in which it held the practice unconstitutional — they not only refrained from authorizing preliminary injunctions but they have also carefully tailored any final injunctive relief to avoid interfering with work of sitting legislatures, despite the presence of legislators whose selection was unconstitutional under the case then decided. This was true in reapportionment cases —see Wise v. Lipscomb,437 U.S. 535,540,98 S.Ct. 2493,2497,57 L.Ed.2d 411(1978) — and others as well —see Ortiz v. Hernandez Colon,385 F. Supp. 111(D.P.R. 1974) (three judge court) (see511 F.2d 1080(1st Cir. 1975) and429 U.S. 1031,97 S.Ct. 721,50 L.Ed.2d 742(1977)). This approach suggests a belief that the public, as a general rule, is likely to suffer less adverse an impact from the presence of an "unconstitutionally selected" legislator than it is from direct judicial intervention into the affairs of an ongoing legislature. Second, the Supreme Court has reached a similar judgment in a case directly related to this one. It has refused to stay,sub nom. Rodriquez v. Popular DemocraticParty,the mandate of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico inPartido Popular Democratico v. Gobernador, supra,holding that a similar appointing system for district representation is constitutional. At the same time it has decided to hear whether the laws providing for the filling of suchdistrict(not at-large) vacancies are constitutional. Thus it will be passing upon the constitutionality of provisions similar in some respects to Article III, Section 8 itself. It has specified that while it decides that issue, the representatives chosen to fill the vacancy will sit.7In other words, the Supreme Court has reached a similar judgment in a case very similar to this one.8
[23] To put the matter differently, we believe the district court should have given somewhat more weight than it did to the desirability of the legislature's functioning and the undesirability except in compelling circumstances of a federal court's intruding through injunctions directly into the Commonwealth's legislative and political processes.Cf. Doran v.Salem Inn, Inc.,422 U.S. 922,95 S.Ct. 2561,45 L.Ed.2d 648(1975);Adams v. Vance,570 F.2d 950(D.C. Cir. 1978). The "preliminary injunction" criteria that we have listed are guidelines, not mechanical formulae, and they are no substitute for the careful exercise of a judgment sensitive to all of the interests likely to be affected by an injunction and the suitability of the underlying controversy to judicial resolution. Here there were adequate signs that might have warned a federal judge to approach the request for injunctive relief with caution: The provisions attacked are part of the Constitution of Puerto Rico. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, as we have said, had addressed a similar challenge to a similar provision and had upheld its constitutionality.Partido Popular Democratico v.Gobernador,111Page 9D.P.R. ___, 81 JTS 41 (1981). The "injury" at issue is to the body politic as a whole; there is no claim of discrimination or real injury to a handful of otherwise unprotected individuals. The "injury" has occurred for many years without previously giving rise to law suits or complaints. The injunction sought interferes directly with the ongoing work of the legislature. The Supreme Court of the United States, in a directly-related case, had refused a stay which would have the same effect as the injunction sought here.
[24] Even without these special factors, however, even under the most traditional tests, the preliminary injunction ought not to have issued.We therefore vacate the order of the district courtand remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[25]The mandate of this court will issue at the close of business,Tuesday, February 2, 1982.
[26] APPENDIX
VOTE FOR CANDIDATES FOR REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE
Page 3
POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY of defendants' GENERAL ELECTIONS 1980 App. 7
LUIS MUNOZ SEVERO E. LUIS A.
FERNANDO
JOSE E. PRECINCTS RONY JARABO ARJONA COLBERG DUPREY
TONOS
ARRARAS ____________________________________________________________________________ San Juan 1 86 24 43 16 7 8,390 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Juan 2 31 8,650 39 8 6 51 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Juan 3 10,873 25 44 10 6 43 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Juan 4 28 9 27 20 12,807 70 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Juan 5 37 11,190 36 10 14 50 ____________________________________________________________________________ Guaynabo 6 50 11 38 4,277 6 43 ____________________________________________________________________________ Guaynabo 9 2 2 3 1,665 0 1 ____________________________________________________________________________ Bayamon 7 27 8 33 7,490 9 31 ____________________________________________________________________________ Bayamon 8 36 22 67 16,597 13 50 ____________________________________________________________________________ Bayamon 10 23 5 24 3 5 8,124 ____________________________________________________________________________ Bayamon 16 28 7,326 49 7 9 25 ____________________________________________________________________________ Corozal 11 10 7 16 0 7,201 15 ____________________________________________________________________________ Naranjito 12 13 5 5 1 7,686 9 ____________________________________________________________________________ Toa Alta 13 17 6,451 12 4 3 13 ____________________________________________________________________________ Toa Baja 14 20 21 24 5,545 4 26 ____________________________________________________________________________ Toa Baja 18 32 12 47 8,246 11 27 ____________________________________________________________________________ Dorado 15 2,507 2 5 0 1 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ Dorado 19 4,139 5 20 0 1 10 ____________________________________________________________________________ Catano 17 11 6 14 1 0 4,409 ____________________________________________________________________________ Vega Alta 20 6,822 7 15 4 3 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Vega Baja 21 24 10,977 37 7 4 22 ____________________________________________________________________________ Manati 22 6 1 5 1 2 2,811 ____________________________________________________________________________ Manati 27 14 3 5 0 0 5,627 ____________________________________________________________________________ Morovis 23 6,039 2 5 2 1 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ Orocovis 24 8 0 4,927 0 6 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ Ciales 25 7 1 0 0 1 4,095 ____________________________________________________________________________ Jayuya 26 3,437 0 1 0 1 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Barceloneta 28 7 1 5 0 4,880 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Florida 29 1 1,787 2 0 0 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Arecibo 30 22 5 8,186 1 2 17 ____________________________________________________________________________ Arecibo 31 31 11 12,764 3 5 25 ____________________________________________________________________________ Hatillo 32 7,382 0 4 0 1 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Hatillo 33 584 0 1 0 0 1 ____________________________________________________________________________ Camuy 34 6 3 9 0 1 6,659 ____________________________________________________________________________ Quebradillas 35 8 5 10 4,961 2 9 ____________________________________________________________________________ Isabela 36 9,547 7 10 6 1 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ Aguadilla 37 12,009 12 25 4 4 25 ____________________________________________________________________________ Moca 38 10 4 14 1 0 5,055 ____________________________________________________________________________ Moca 39 0 0 2 0 0 1,766 ____________________________________________________________________________Page 10Aguada 40 6,647 7 14 0 0 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ Rincon 41 11 1 4 1 3,595 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ Anasco 42 6,114 2 8 0 0 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ Mayaguez 43 6 3 8 0 2 3,120 ____________________________________________________________________________ Mayaguez 44 52 16 73 7 4 16,067 ____________________________________________________________________________ Mayaguez 45 9 5 15 1 0 4,149 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Sebastian 46 21 7 18 9,301 0 10 ____________________________________________________________________________ Las Marias 47 4 1 3 2,524 0 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ Maricao 48 1 1 3 1 0 1,740 ____________________________________________________________________________ Hormigueros 49 17 3 12 0 3,853 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ San German 50 3 1,140 6 0 0 0 ____________________________________________________________________________ San German 51 23 7,353 29 1 4 13 ____________________________________________________________________________ Cabo Rojo 52 12 6 8,324 0 4 9 ____________________________________________________________________________ Lajas 53 10 7 5,966 4 9 19 ____________________________________________________________________________ Sabana Grande 54 13 5 6,829 0 1 15 ____________________________________________________________________________ Guanica 55 20 0 8 1 2 4,498 ____________________________________________________________________________ Yauco 56 22 13 9,297 21 3 21 ____________________________________________________________________________ Guayanilla 57 0 0 1 382 0 1 ____________________________________________________________________________ SUBTOTALS 76,919 55,177 57,191 61,134 40,179 77,241
VOTE FOR CANDIDATES FOR REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE
Page 4
POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY of defendants' GENERAL ELECTIONS 1980 — CONTINUED App. 7
LUIS MUNOZ SEVERO E. LUIS A.
FERNANDO
JOSE E. PRECINCTS RONY JARABO ARJONA COLBERG DUPREY
TONOS
ARRARAS ____________________________________________________________________________ Guayanilla 62 20 5 17 4,534 2 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ Lares 58 9 8 6,808 2 4 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ Utuado 59 19 0 8,422 1 3 17 ____________________________________________________________________________ Adjuntas 60 5 2 0 0 2,008 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ Adjuntas 61 5 0 0 0 2,963 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ Penuelas 63 4 3 5 4,665 5 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Ponce 64 27 9 22 19 7,724 19 ____________________________________________________________________________ Ponce 65 11,834 13 38 21 6 29 ____________________________________________________________________________ Ponce 66 33 18 12,190 14 7 30 ____________________________________________________________________________ Villalba 67 1 3 4,610 2 1 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ Juana Diaz 68 14 13 6 18 8,891 41 ____________________________________________________________________________ Santa Isabel 69 11 0 6 13 1 3,553 ____________________________________________________________________________ Santa Isabel 70 1 0 1 1 0 1,095 ____________________________________________________________________________ Coamo 71 16 8,152 10 1 4 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Salinas 72 13 4 10 4 2 6,915 ____________________________________________________________________________ Aibonito 73 10 4 4,684 0 1 12 ____________________________________________________________________________ Aibonito 74 6 0 1,360 0 2 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Barranquitas 75 12 1 11 0 5,606 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Comerio 76 4,865 3 6 0 3 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ Aguas Buenas 77 5,279 5 6 1 2 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ Cidra 78 3 2,807 5 0 0 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Cidra 79 3 3,837 10 1 1 10 ____________________________________________________________________________ Cayey 80 25 4 10,497 4 13 37 ____________________________________________________________________________ Guayama 81 7 1 5 2,455 1 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ Guayama 82 27 10 39 6,060 7 31 ____________________________________________________________________________ Maunabo 83 3,056 0 3 0 1 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ Patillas 84 22 2 4 33 4,669 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Arroyo 85 9 3 14 3,935 2 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ Caguas 86 42 17,579 42 16 17 59 ____________________________________________________________________________ Caguas 87 16 8,284 18 14 14 20 ____________________________________________________________________________ Juncos 88 7 6,608 7 1 2 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Gurabo 89 18 5 5 1 6,173 14 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Lorenzo 90 7,977 6 7 1 8 9 ____________________________________________________________________________ Yabucoa 91 27 3 14 1 8,442 13 ____________________________________________________________________________Page 11Las Piedras 92 4 1 3 3 2,877 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ Las Piedras 95 3 3 1 1 2,994 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Humacao 93 27 12,383 39 11 12 27 ____________________________________________________________________________ Naguabo 94 25 4 15 1 5 5,422 ____________________________________________________________________________ Ceiba 96 2 1 1 1 0 737 ____________________________________________________________________________ Ceiba 102 5 1,774 4 0 2 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ Rio Grande 97 22 6 12 4 7,229 35 ____________________________________________________________________________ Luquillo 98 8 1 5 1 3,454 12 ____________________________________________________________________________ Fajardo 99 15 8 14 1 6,680 32 ____________________________________________________________________________ Culebra 100 376 0 0 0 0 0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Vieques 101 5 2,217 4 1 0 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ Canovanas 103 13 7 14 2 7,704 22 ____________________________________________________________________________ Loiza 104 6 4 15 2,645 1 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Carolina 105 35 10 56 10,760 14 50 ____________________________________________________________________________ Carolina 106 71 31 57 15 9 14,102 ____________________________________________________________________________ Carolina 107 7 3 5 0 2,832 19 ____________________________________________________________________________ Trujillo Alto 108 4,672 12 18 6 4 36 ____________________________________________________________________________ Trujillo Alto 110 4,356 7 8 3 6 24 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Juan 109 64 17 10,783 6 39 65 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Juan 111 55 26 53 10,299 27 92 ____________________________________________________________________________ San Juan 112 21 15 19 4 8 6,070 ____________________________________________________________________________ Guaynabo 113 43 14 63 9,065 17 41 ============================================================================ SUBTOTALS 43,258 63,936 60,071 54,647 80,499 38,835 ____________________________________________________________________________ TOTALS 120,177 119,133 117,262 115,781 120,678 116,076 ____________________________________________________________________________
- InPartido Popular Democratico v. Gobernador,111 D.P.R. ___, 81 JTS 41 (1981), the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico faced a statutory question involving a problem similar to the one we face today. There, a vacancy was created in the House of Representatives by the death of a district (not an at-large) representative. Interpreting thestatutoryprovision establishing the procedure for the filling of vacancies in district seats, the Supreme Court held that no by-election was required for filling the vacancy. Addressing a federal right-to-vote question, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico noticed that "[t]he Constitution of the United States does not require either a fixed method for filling vacancies." Addressing an attack on equal protection grounds, the Court ruled:
. . . the method designed by the lawmaker has no defects with regard to the equal protection of the law. The exclusion of candidates of other parties and of independent candidates does not violate the constitutional guarantee to the equal protection of the law. Even assuming that the strict scrutiny rule is applicable, there is compelling public interest directing the lawmaker to consider that the vacant seat belongs to the party who nominated the legislator. Among those compelling interests the following can be singled out: that there be no changes in the legislative balance until the next general election is held, the stability of governmental structures, the protection of the electoral mandate of the previous general election, and the reduction of inter-partisan political campaigns to once every four years.
The Supreme Court of the United States,sub nom. Rodriquez v.Popular Democratic Party,noted probable jurisdiction of an appeal from the judgment of the Puerto Rico courts, ___ U.S. ___,102 S.Ct. 472,70 L.Ed.2d 246(1981). However, the full Court decided not to stay the mandate of the Commonwealth Supreme Court pending its hearing,453 U.S. 907,101 S.Ct. 3138,69 L.Ed.2d 991(1981). ↩ - The district judge, when referring to the likelihood of success in this case, used the phrase, "substantial possibility" of success. Except in the unusual case, however, where the harm to plaintiffs is particularly severe and disproportionate,seeProvidence Journal Co. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation,595 F.2d 889,890(1st Cir. 1979), in this circuit a probability of success is ordinarily called for. ↩
- In the single exception,Rudman v. Rini,64 Ill.2d 321, 1 Ill.Dec. 4,356 N.E.2d 4(1976), the Illinois Supreme Court held that to allow a political party to fill a nonlegislative county office violated thestateconstitution's separation of powers provision — a matter here only tangentially, if at all, relevant. ↩
- When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies;Provided,
That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
XVII Amendment.
As to members of the House of Representatives, ArticleI, Section2of the U.S. Constitution provides, "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." ↩ - Mr. Tonos Florenzan received 120,678 votes in the 1980 election and 120,268 of these votes were cast for him in the 21 precincts where he appeared at the top of the PDP ticket. Although he was available to the electors in the rest of the 113 electoral precincts of Puerto Rico, he accumulated only around 400 votes in those other precincts. ↩
- Plaintiffs also argue that the selection process violates theTwenty-SixthAmendment to the Constitution. Article III, Section 8 specifies that the party select its replacement in the same manner in which the former representative was selected. In this case, the former representative was chosen as a "youth delegate" and the successor-selection process, in plaintiffs' view, therefore discriminates against the aged. This issue was not raised below, and it played no part in the district judge's deliberations. Indeed, the issue apparently was first raised in a brief filed here the day before argument. Defendants have had no opportunity to consider this lately added ground. Therefore we do not pass upon this question. We note, however, that we do not believe plaintiffs' argument is likely to prove so clearly correct as to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs point toTerry v. Adams,345 U.S. 461,73 S.Ct. 809,97 L.Ed. 1152(1953) in which the Supreme Court struck down a party primary that involved racial discrimination. Selection of a "youth delegate" does not obviously fit within that case's bounds. Given the issue and far-reaching impact of a decision (presumably applying to party primary election procedures as well) full argument is warranted prior to any judicial change in the status quo. ↩
- Justice Brennan referred the issue to the full Court.453 U.S. 907,101 S.Ct. 3138,69 L.Ed. 2d 991(1981). ↩
- Thus, the injunction at issue here cannot prevent at least one "potentially unconstitutional" representative from sitting — an additional fact that makes the district court's finding of "irreparable harm" in the absence of the injunction surprising. ↩