MATTHEWS Et Al. v. LITTLE, CITY CLERK OF ATLANTA
Headline: Atlanta municipal filing fees temporarily blocked for candidates: Court allows prospective alderman and a voter to avoid paying disputed fees and extends filing deadline so the election can proceed.
Holding:
- Temporarily lets candidates avoid paying disputed Atlanta filing fees until the Supreme Court decides.
- Extends candidate filing deadline from September 10 to at least September 16, 1969.
- Keeps elections on schedule while preserving challengers' right to contest the fees.
Summary
Background
Ethel Mae Matthews is a prospective candidate for alderman in Atlanta and Julia Shields is a qualified Atlanta voter. They challenged an August 26, 1969, city ordinance that requires candidates to pay filing fees. They said the fees violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and a three-judge district court earlier held that collecting those fees unconstitutionally denies equal protection.
Reasoning
The problem was timing: Atlanta’s municipal election was scheduled for October 7, and the Supreme Court would not have time to decide the full case before that date because the Court meets on October 6. A court-ordered postponement could be disruptive, but forcing challengers to pay fees deemed possibly unconstitutional could keep serious candidates out. To avoid both harms, the Circuit Justice temporarily relieved the applicants from paying the challenged fees and required the city to extend the filing deadline, giving the full Court time to consider the constitutional and voting-rights questions.
Real world impact
As ordered, the city must extend the deadline for filing notice of candidacy (originally September 10) at least until September 16, 1969, and the applicants need not pay the disputed fees while the Supreme Court reviews the case. This lets Atlanta go forward with the October 7 election unless city officials choose instead to postpone it until after the Court decides. The temporary relief preserves the challengers’ ability to run now while leaving the final legal questions for the full Court to resolve.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?