Al Pisano v. Kim Strach
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3729
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- North Carolina law allows recognized parties, unaffiliated candidates, and qualifying new parties to appear on general election ballots; new parties must file county petitions by 5:00 PM on May 17 and with the State Board by June 1, and must gather signatures equal to 2% of votes in the last gubernatorial election (with geographic minimums).
- Plaintiffs (North Carolina Constitution Party, North Carolina Green Party, Al Pisano, Nicholas Triplett) sued, alleging the May 17 petition-filing deadline (as applied to presidential elections) combined with the 2% signature requirement severely burdens ballot access and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Equal Protection.
- District court denied Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) discovery request, held the May 17 deadline constitutional (finding any burden modest and outweighed by state interests), and denied preliminary injunction; Plaintiffs appealed.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed denial of Rule 56(d) for abuse of discretion and reviewed summary judgment de novo, examining the ballot-access burden under the Anderson/Burdick framework.
- The court found the record sufficient without additional discovery, concluded the May 17 deadline (which follows North Carolina’s May primary) imposes only a modest burden when viewed within the overall statutory scheme, and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Rule 56(d) was improper | Plaintiffs: discovery essential to oppose summary judgment | State: record already contains relevant evidence; discovery not necessary | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether May 17 filing deadline + 2% signature requirement imposes a severe burden on ballot access | Plaintiffs: early deadline prevents signature-gathering during peak campaign season and before nominees/platforms are known, severely burdening associational/expression rights | State: deadline falls after May primary, groups have years' notice and many opportunities to gather signatures; alleviating statutory features reduce burden | Not a severe burden; burden characterized as modest |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny (strict vs. balancing) | Plaintiffs: strict scrutiny applies because burden is severe | State: at most reasonable regulation justified by important state interests; apply Anderson/Burdick balancing | Balancing standard applied; strict scrutiny rejected |
| Constitutionality of May 17 deadline under Anderson/Burdick | Plaintiffs: deadline unconstitutional as applied to presidential cycles | State: deadline is reasonable to allow signature verification, ballot preparation, and prevent confusion; fits within overall schedule | Deadline upheld as constitutional as applied |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. N.C. Bd. of Elections, 65 F.3d 1215 (4th Cir. 1995) (discussing ballot-access burdens and strict scrutiny when burdens are severe)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (Anderson balancing framework for election-law burdens)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (invalidating an early presidential filing deadline and emphasizing burdens on associational rights)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1971) (state interest in a preliminary showing of support to avoid ballot confusion)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1986) (states need not show specific instances of confusion before imposing reasonable ballot-access restrictions)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1997) (state regulatory interests need only be sufficiently weighty under Anderson/Burdick)
- Wood v. Meadows, 207 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2000) (examine ballot-access scheme in its entirety when assessing deadlines)
- S.C. Green Party v. S.C. State Election Comm’n, 612 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying Anderson/Burdick balancing to ballot-access rules)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing early deadlines from those near primaries and upholding later deadlines)
- American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1974) (recognizing administrative needs—signature verification, printing, litigation—as legitimate state interests)