Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

532 F.2d 873

Docket Docket No. 76-8127.

Feinstein v. Carey

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued March 31, 1976.

Decided April 1, 1976.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1976-04-01

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1976

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 9031 (Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973A (§ 3 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)

Relies on Rosario v. Rockefeller · Rosario v. Rockefeller

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1976-04-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Steven Silvern, New York City (Emil, Kobrin, Klein & Garbus, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.

¶2A. Seth Greenwald, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Stanley L. Zalen, State Board of Elections, New York City, for appellees.

¶3Before ANDERSON and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, and OWEN, District Judge.*

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6We affirm the decision of the district court dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs allege that New York Election Law § 186 is void because inconsistent with 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa — 1. This claim is squarely foreclosed by the decision in Rosario v. Rockefeller, 458 F.2d 649 (2 Cir. 1972), aff'd, 410 U.S. 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973). Plaintiffs, however, argue that Rosario is no longer controlling because § 1973aa-l has been amended or modified by the 1975 Voting Rights Extension Act and the 1974 Presidential Primary Matching Account Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-la and 26 U.S.C. § 9031et seq. This is the sole basis for the plaintiffs’ claim. The statutes cited, however, do not on their faces modify or amend § 1973aa-l in the manner suggested by plaintiffs, and there is no legislative history or other valid indicia of congressional intent to support plaintiffs’ position. Rosario, is, therefore, still controlling, and we affirm.

/532/f2d/873 · .json · Public domain