Registration, the Polls, and Political Parties Flashcards
Bullock v. Carter (1972)
Texas law requires candidates to pay a filing fee to be placed on the primary ballot. Appellee meets all the requirements but could not afford to pay the filing fees ranging from $1k to $6,300 to be placed on ballot. The question here is if we use rational basis standard for filing fee or something stricter. Filing fee schemes must be closely scrutinized and found reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of a legit state objective. High filing fees here may meet a legit state objective of limiting the number of candidates on the ballot, but they do not survive scrutiny because they do so entirely arbitrarily
Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983)
Held that Ohio’s early filing deadline placed an unconstitutional burden on the voting and associational rights of candidate’s supporters. Key to this holding was the statement that all election laws will invariably impose a burden on individual voters
Burdick v. Takushi (1992)
Builds on Anderson, flexible standard for ballot access law scrutiny.
• Must weigh character and magnitude of purported injury against the precise interest of the state set forth justifications
• When we have recognized these rights are subjected to severe restriction the regulation must be drawn narrowly to advance a compelling state interest
• When not severe, a general interest is enough for state to show
Munro v. Socialist Worker’s Party (1980)
Wa. State statute requires a minority party candidate receive at least 1% of the primary vote to appear on the general election ballot. Dean Peoples of the SWP receives less than this amount and files suit to challenge the statutes as unconstitutional. White holds that States have a right to require candidates to make preliminary showing of substantial support in order to qualify for the ballot (important state interest). We have never required a state to make a showing of voter confusion, ballot overcrowding or frivolous candidacies for reasonable restriction
Timmons v. Twin Cities New Party (1997)
Challenge to Min law preventing fusion candidacies. State rep Andy Dawking is already on the ballot for the Dem. Farmer Labor Party and accepts nomination from Twin Cities as well but Min refuse to accept nominating petition. Rehnquist that a particular candidate does not appear on the ballot as a particular party does not severely burden the party’s associational rights. Min has not directly precluded the party from selecting a candidate or organizing here, minor parties can survive without fusion.
Ca. Democratic Party v. Jones (2000)
Concerns Ca. prop 198 which provides that any person not affiliated with a political party has the right to vote for any candidate regardless of their affiliation. Scalia holds a corollary of the right to associate is the right to not associate and political associations must be able to exclude non-members to protect that right. The blanket primary presents a clear and present danger of having the opposing party determine the first party’s nominee
Nader v. Schaffer (D. Conn. 1976)
Challenge to Conn. statute barring independent voters or those not registered with a party from voting in the primaries. District judge holds the two parties have not obtained status of being only ones to proffer realistic candidates because of exclusion of right to vote, but rather by attracting most of the electorate over time. Improper state support for them cannot be inferred simply by existence of regulation of the parties. Party affiliation requirement doesn’t require one to vote or any time/resource investment and thus doesn’t violate a right to not associate.
Tashijian v. Republican Party of Conn. (1986)
1984 Conn. Repub. State convention adopts a rule permitting independents to vote in their primary 9as a way to gain on Dems.) They then pushed for an amendment to primary law to permit independents when allowed by party rules. Marshall rules that this statute limits associational rights at a critical juncture for one of party’s most basic functions.
Wa. State Grange v. Wa. State Rep. Party (2008)
Ballot initiative passed in 2004 after Wa. blanket primary was declared unconstitutional, creates a topo 2 system where the top 2 vote earners in the primaries, regardless of party, end up on the ballot for general election. This is a facial challenge here, no particular election involve. Must establish no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid or if the statute has a “plainly legitimate sweep”
Thomas Opinion:
Wa.’s top two system survives a facial challenge under either standard
• There is no risk unaffiliated party votes or vote raiding because the statute makes no explicit reference to party whatsoever
• All of respondent’s arguments depend on specific allegations of voter confusion that cannot survive at a facial challenge level
State need not assert a compelling interest because there is no severe burden imposed here
New York Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres (2008)
NY elects trial judges, who are nominated at party conventions by delegates chosen during the primary election. Plaintiffs both sought the party nomination but claimed it was impossible to succeed without support of party leaders. UNanimous court rejects plaintiffs claims on two grounds
• No associational rights are burdened because plaintiffs were pitted against their own parties
• Plaintiffs can vote in election for delegates who would support them or could run themselves
Eu v. SF County Democratic Central Committee (1989)
Ca. election code prevents parties from officially endorsing any candidate or opposing them, before a direct primary election and also Ca. dictates the size and composition, selection, and removal of members and term limits for members. Marshall holds that A state cannot regulate a party’s internal affairs without a showing that such regulation is necessary to ensure an election that is orderly and fair. Ca. violates this on both fronts here.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)
Concerns Indiana’s voter ID laws; plaintiffs are Indiana Dem. Party, two elected officials and various non-profits representing the elderly, poor and minority voters. Ultimately Stevens doesn’t think the burden imposed here are all that serious or frequent enough to raise constitutional concern, the facial challenge to the statute here must fail because it has a plainly legitimate sweep.
Souter in Crawford
Statute is unconstitutional under the balancing test set forth in Burdick, a state may not burden the right to vote merely by invoking abstract interests, be they legitimate or even compelling, but must make a particular showing that threats to its interests outweigh the particular impediments
Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council (2013)
National Voter Registration Act requires states to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for fed elections. Az. law allows officials to reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by concrete evidence of citizenship. Scalia finds that there is no presumption against pre-emption in Elections clause cases, Az. has misread the terms accept and use to mean that they can supplant federal law but this is not the case. Fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by fed form is inconsistent with NVRA mandate.
Housted v. A Phillip Randolph (2018)
Overall question is if the way that Ohio is purging voters in inconsistent with the NVRA failure to vote clause, as opposed to death, relocation or felony and the HAVA provision that failure to respond is not a reason to purge a voter. The Court ruled in a 5–4 partisan decision that Ohio’s law did not violate federal laws. The Alito majority treated failure to respond as “evidence: of relocations, instead of as creating another reason for removal.
