James Earl Major

The case involved plaintiffs seeking to compel Illinois election officials to place Communist Party candidates on the November 1936 ballot after a nominating petition with over 25,000 signatures was rejected by a state electoral board. Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court requesting injunctive relief against county clerks and state officers to include the candidates' names on ballots and to invalidate the board's ruling, which had found the petition insufficient under state law because some signers had previously voted in a primary. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that federal equity jurisdiction does not extend to claims involving political rights such as ballot access and voting, which courts have consistently refused to adjudicate through injunctions.

electionsprocedure

In Re Borgelt involved two brothers who filed petitions under section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act seeking agricultural debt relief after a foreclosure sale on their farmland, where the redemption period was about to expire. The debtors attempted to amend their petitions to be adjudicated as bankrupts under subdivision (s) after failing to reach a composition with creditors. The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the debtors had not complied with the required procedures under the original section 75 and that they no longer had an interest in the property because the state redemption period had expired, which a federal bankruptcy court could not extend without violating state property law and prior court decrees.

propertyprocedurefederal power

In Keogh v. Horner, the petitioner sought a writ of prohibition from a federal district court to bar the Governor of Illinois from issuing certificates of election to U.S. House members elected in November 1934, arguing that the elections were invalid because the state had not redrawn congressional districts since 1901, creating districts with grossly unequal populations in violation of federal law. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that federal district courts possess only the limited jurisdiction expressly or impliedly conferred by Congress, that no statute authorized issuance of the writ in this context, and that the Governor's duty to issue certificates was purely ministerial rather than judicial or quasi-judicial. The court further observed that authority to judge the elections and qualifications of members of Congress rests exclusively with Congress under the Constitution.

electionsfederal powerprocedure