tration officials from
excluding the appellant from the voting list. However, the election in
which appellant desired to vote was held prior to the appeal, and the
case thereby became moot. _See also_ St. Pierre _v._ United States, 319
U.S. 41 (1943).
[191] Ibid. 653.
[192] Keim _v._ United States, 177 U.S. 290, 293 (1900); Georgia _v._
Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, 71 (1868).
[193] 14 Pet. 497 (1840).
[194] Ibid. 516.
[195] Ibid., and Kendall _v._ United States ex rel. Stokes, 12 Pet. 524,
621 (1838); _see also_ Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cr. 137 (1803).
[196] Mississippi _v._ Johnson, 4 Wall. 475 (1867).
[197] Georgia _v._ Stanton, 6 Wall. 50 (1868).
[198] Ibid.
[199] 4 Wall. 475 (1867).
[200] 12 Pet. 524 (1838).
[201] 1 Cr. 137, 170 (1803).
[202] 7 How. 1 (1849).
[203] Ibid. 41.
[204] Ibid. 42-45.
[205] This classification follows in the main that of Melville Fuller
Weston, Political Questions, 38 Harv. L. Rev. 296 (1925).
[206] Field _v._ Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892).
[207] Coleman _v._ Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).
[208] Foster _v._ Neilson, 2 Pet. 253 (1829). _See_ p. 472, supra.
[209] Commercial Trust Co. of New Jersey _v._ Miller, 262 U.S. 51
(1923).
[210] United States _v._ Anderson, 9 Wall. 56 (1870).
[211] Luther _v._ Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849); Pacific States Telephone &
Telegraph Co. _v._ Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912).
[212] Luther _v._ Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849).
[213] McPherson _v._ Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), where the Court refused
to pass upon the act of the Michigan legislature in 1892 providing for
the election of presidential electors by Congressional districts.
[214] South _v._ Peters, 339 U.S. 276 (1950).
[215] Colegrove _v._ Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946).
[216] Massachusetts _v._ Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923); Georgia _v._
Stanton, 6 Wall. U.S. 50 (1868); Cherokee Nation _v._ Georgia, 5 Pet. 1
(1831).
[217] 143 U.S. 649, 670-672 (1892).
[218] Coleman _v._ Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939).
[219] Ibid. 452-453.
[220] 328 U.S. 549 (1946).
[221] 287 U.S. 1 (1932). This case involved an unsuccessful attempt to
enjoin an election of representatives in Congress in Mississippi because
the districts formed by the legislature for that purpose were not a
contiguous and compact territory and of equal population and that the
redistricting violated article I, Sec. 4 and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court held that the provisions of the Reapportionment Act of 1929
|