Anderson, Eastwood, Albert and Killoran v. State of Vermont, Secretary Condos
82 A.3d 577
Vt.2013Background
- Independent candidates for U.S. President in Vermont must file a nomination statement with at least 1000 valid voter signatures and obtain town-clerk certification that signers are registered voters in their towns (17 V.S.A. §2402).
- Certification requirement applied only to independent candidates, not major parties, creating potential unequal treatment.
- Secretary of State interprets 17 V.S.A. §2402(a)(4) to require certification only from original nominating petition pages, not copies, posing practical burdens on multi-town petitions.
- Anderson’s campaign gathered about 1400 signatures across multiple towns but could certify only 580 due to the original-page requirement and deadlines.
- Trial court found the original-statement certification to unduly burden First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and granted injunction, while the State appealed.
- We review de novo the trial court’s conclusions of law and affirm the injunction balancing the state interests against the rights asserted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether original-statement certification unduly burdens First/Fourteenth Amendment rights | Anderson/Anderson-Eastwood argue the requirement burdens rights | State asserts legitimate interests and minor burden | Yes; burden unconstitutional as applied |
| Whether the burden is minor and justified by state interests | Burden not justified by interests; too burdensome | Interests in deterring fraud and orderly elections support the rule | No; interests do not justify the burden as applied |
| Appropriate scope of judicial review and application of balancing test | Defer to state interests but require real nexus | State interests must be weighed against rights with meaningful articulation | Court properly applied balancing; rule invalidated as applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (balancing rights against election integrity burdens)
- Trudell v. Markowitz, 2013 VT 18 (VT 2013) (reasonableness of nondiscriminatory restrictions; apply balancing test with sufficient nexus)
- Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1992) (demonstrates that state interests may justify restrictions with narrow tailoring)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (standard for reviewing nondiscriminatory ballot access restrictions)