Angle v. Miller
673 F.3d 1122
9th Cir.2012Background
- Nevada allows direct ballot initiatives; 10% signature threshold must be gathered from registered voters in each congressional district.
- All Districts Rule (2011) requires 10% in every congressional district to qualify an initiative for the ballot.
- Plaintiffs (five individuals and two organizations) challenge the All Districts Rule as unconstitutional, asserting equal protection and First Amendment harms.
- Defendant Miller, Nevada Secretary of State, defends the rule as constitutionally permissible and aims to ensure statewide support and prevent local-only ballot clutter.
- The district court denied relief; Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms the district court’s judgment on the facial challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the All Districts Rule violate equal protection? | Plaintiffs argue it dilutes votes by giving equal power to districts of unequal population. | Miller argues the rule uses equal-population districts and serves legitimate state interests. | No equal-protection violation; rational basis review applies. |
| Does the rule impose a severe First Amendment burden on initiative proponents? | Plaintiffs contend the rule makes petitioning more expensive/difficult, inhibiting speech. | State interest in modicum statewide support justifies the burden; no severe burden proven. | No severe First Amendment burden shown; strict scrutiny not triggered. |
| Does counting signatures by district contradict Gray/Gordon and thus render the rule unconstitutional for signature counting? | Counting by district devalues statewide support similarly to district-based vote counting. | Ballot access signatures are distinct from elections and may be district-based if districts are equipopulous. | District-based counting for signatures does not violate equal protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (invalidated equal-power district signature rules; one-person-one-vote principle)
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) (county-unit system violates equal protection in statewide elections)
- Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971) (discussed geographic discrimination and majority-rule implications)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (voting weight disparities violate equal protection in apportionment)
- Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa, 342 F.3d 1073 (2003) (invalidated Idaho’s county-based signature rule; favored equipopulous district approach)
- Lomax v. Marijuana Policy Project, 471 F.3d 1010 (2006) (invalidated Nevada’s prior geographic signature rule; endorsed equal-population district approach)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (upheld ballot-initiative rights; recognized potential speech burdens in initiative process)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (discussed regulatory interests and speech in ballot-access context)