940 F. 2d 668 - Hispanic Political Council v. Pringle

MEMORANDUM*

This case presents the narrow legal question whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for one of the defendants. In reviewing a grant of summary judgment we view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1986),--here the plaintiff. For purposes of this disposition, we must assume that there was a conspiracy to deny the plaintiffs' voting rights, although no such conspiracy has yet been established through any legal process. The only question we decide is whether, based on the assumption we are required to make (that there was a conspiracy), there is a disputed question of material fact as to whether the Republican Party of California participated in it. We decide that on the present state of the record there is such a disputed issue of fact.

It is admitted for present purposes that Mr. Godfrey was an agent of the Republican Party of California and was in charge of the Orange County Central Committee's administration of Fair Count '88. The Republican Party of California contends that it initiated the Fair Count '88 program, through its State Central Committee, to ensure the validity of the voting process. The State Central Committee1 designated one person within each county central committee to oversee the program. Both Fair Count '88 and the alleged conspiracy were concerned with the conduct of election day processes at the polls and the eligibility of potential voters. The gest of the alleged conspiracy is the employment of security guards to intimidate Hispanic voters on election day. As noted earlier, we do not reach the question whether any wrongful conduct in fact occurred.

Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude that the grant of summary judgment was improper. The record indicates that Mr. Godfrey was present at a meeting between the Orange County registrar of voters and a member of the alleged conspiracy at which the challenging of voters was discussed, although not the particular method by which the voters were to be challenged. Mr. Godfrey spoke frequently with other members of the alleged conspiracy regarding the "ballot security" measures authorized under the Fair Count '88 program. On the morning of Election Day, in response to complaints about the presence of security guards at the polls, the Orange County registrar contacted Mr. Godfrey to request that they be removed. Other members of the state Republican party also called Mr. Godfrey to recommend that he take action to remove the guards. Furthermore, there is evidence, albeit disputed, that Mr. Godfrey called the security guard company, that he did not request that the guards be removed, and that he, instead, allegedly directed that the guards change into civilian clothing and return to the polling places for the remainder of the day. (That the guards did not actually do so is of no relevance for purposes of the particular motion before us.)

The evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the Republican Party of California, through its agent Mr. Godfrey, was a participant in the alleged conspiracy, if in fact one existed.

Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment is REVERSED.