HALL v.

BEALS
396 U.S. 45, 90 S.Ct. 200, 24 L.Ed.2d. 214 (1969)
FACTS:
Appellants moved to Colorado in June of 1968 and were refused the right to vote in
the Nov. 1968 presidential election because Colorado law required voters to be residents for
at least si months prior to the date of the election. Appellants brought a class action suit
challenging the constitutionalit! of the restriction" and see#ing in$unctive relief to prevent
enforcement of the statute.
%he district court upheld the statute and dismissed Appellants complaint" holding
that the si&month requirement was not unconstitutional. As a result" the appellants did not
vote in the 1968 presidential election. After the! were granted certiorari b! the '( (upreme
Court the )rst time" and the case was remanded for statute amendment" Colorado
legislature changed the law reducing the residenc! period for presidential elections to two
months. *ollowing the amendment" appellants appeared again before the '( (upreme Court
to challenge the new residenc! period on the same grounds as the original si month
restriction.
ISSUE:
+oes requiring voters to ful)ll a si&month residenc! requirement in order to vote in a
presidential election violate the Constitution,
HELD:
%he $udgment is vacated and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the
cause as moot.
-%he 1968 election is histor!" and it is now impossible to grant the appellants the
relief the! sought in the +istrict Court. *urther" the appellants have now satis)ed the si&
month residenc! requirement of which the! complained. .ut apart from these
considerations" the recent amendator! action of the Colorado /egislature has surel!
operated to render this case moot. 0e review the $udgment below in light of the Colorado
statute as it now stands" not as it once did.
%he appellants 1cannot represent a class of which the! are not a part" that is" the class of
voters disquali)ed in Colorado b! virtue of the new two&month requirement" a class of which
the appellants have never been members. %he appellants will face disenfranchisement in
Colorado in 1923 onl! in the unli#el! event that the! )rst move out of the (tate and then re&
establish residence there within two months of the presidential election in that !ear. 4r the!
ma! ta#e up residence in some other (tate" and in 1923 face disquali)cation under that
(tate1s law. .ut such speculative contingencies a5ord no basis for our passing on the
substantive issues the appellants would have us decide with respect to the now&amended
law of Colorado. %he $udgment of the +istrict Court is vacated and the case is remanded with
directions to dismiss the cause as moot.