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 first 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 fulfill 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 satisfied 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. /e review the $udgment below
in light of the Colorado statute as it now stands" not as it once did.
%he appellants 0cannot represent a class of which the! are not a part" that is" the class of voters
disqualified 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 1912 onl! in the unli#el!
event that the! first move out of the (tate and then re&establish residence there within two months of the
presidential election in that !ear. 3r the! ma! ta#e up residence in some other (tate" and in 1912 face
disqualification under that (tate0s law. -ut such speculative contingencies afford 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.,