433 F.Supp.3d 670
M.D. Pa.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Benezet Consulting, Pool, and Carol Love challenged Pennsylvania Election Code provisions governing presidential primary nomination-petition circulation (25 P.S. §§ 2868, 2869), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under § 1983.
- Key contested provisions: (1) an in-state witness (residency) requirement for each petition sheet; (2) a notarization/affidavit requirement (later amended out of the statute); and (3) a prohibition on a qualified elector signing more than one nomination petition.
- Benezet is a Texas signature-gathering company that used out-of-state professional circulators paid per signature; Pool is its member/manager and a Texas-registered Republican; Love is a Pennsylvania-registered Republican voter.
- Plaintiffs alleged economic harm and burdens on political speech from having to secure Pennsylvania in-state witnesses and pay notarization costs; defendants argued the rules did not prevent petitioning and advanced fraud-prevention and ballot-integrity interests.
- After discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held the case justiciable (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review applied) and resolved several constitutional claims on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s In-State Witness Requirement (First Amendment) | Benezet/Pool: residency witness rule burdens core political speech; Pool will submit to PA jurisdiction, so the residency requirement is not narrowly tailored. | Boockvar/Marks: rule is necessary to prevent fraud and ensure orderly elections; burden is minimal and rationally related to compelling interests. | Applied strict scrutiny; as-applied to Benezet and Pool (circulating for Republican primary) the rule is not narrowly tailored. Plaintiffs succeed on as-applied claim; facial challenge denied. Court enjoined enforcement as to Benezet and Pool for 2020 Republican primary. |
| Notarization/Affidavit Requirement (First Amendment) | Plaintiffs: notarization imposed costs and logistical burdens on circulators and reduced time for petitioning. | Defendants: notarization aids verification; many notaries available and fee caps limit cost. | Moot — Pennsylvania amended §2869 to replace notarized affidavit with an unsworn statement; Counts challenging notarization dismissed as moot. |
| Prohibition on signing more than one nomination petition (First Amendment ballot-access challenge) | Plaintiffs (primarily Love): prohibition burdens right to petition/associate and may limit ballot access. | Defendants: provision prevents ballot clutter/confusion and ensures viable candidates; Love lacks evidence of a concrete burden. | Defendants entitled to summary judgment. Court found no sufficiently severe burden on Love to trigger heightened scrutiny; provision upheld as applied to Love. |
| Equal Protection challenge to differential enforcement (prohibition on multiple-signatures) | Plaintiffs: disparate treatment post-Green Party (minor parties were exempted) violates equal protection as major-party circulators remain subject to the rule. | Defendants: major parties are not similarly situated to minor parties; Green Party decision does not create an equal-protection violation here. | Defendants entitled to summary judgment. Court found plaintiffs not similarly situated and no basis to extend Green Party relief to them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (establishes genuine-dispute and materiality standard for summary judgment)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson-Burdick balancing framework for election-law burdens)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (upholds core political-speech protection for petition circulation and examines residency/verification requirements)
- Lerman v. Board of Elections in City of New York, 232 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2000) (recognizes strict scrutiny for restrictions on circulation of nomination papers)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Wilmoth v. Secretary of New Jersey, [citation="731 F. App'x 97"] (3d Cir.) (third-circuit discussion that residency restrictions on circulators are subject to strict scrutiny)
- Judd, Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308 (4th Cir.) (treats petition circulation as core political speech and analyzes residency limits)