Airey v. Feliciano

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of a motion for a new primary because neither competing slate qualified for the ballot, the scheduled primary had been canceled, and the governing statutes therefore did not authorize a new election. The court also rejected the claim that denying a new primary violated voters' fundamental rights because the candidates' failure to qualify, rather than state action, caused the absence of an election. Finally, the court held that both slates had standing under the imputed knowledge doctrine and declined to overrule or narrow that doctrine.