Constitution Party of Pennsylv v. Carol Aichele
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12926
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Appellants Constitution Party of Pennsylvania, Green Party of Pennsylvania, and Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania challenge PA election code §§2911(b) and 2937 under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
- PA law distinguishes political parties from political bodies; CGL Parties are treated as political bodies for ballot access purposes due to not meeting vote-thresholds.
- §2911(b) requires non-major parties to submit nomination papers with signatures to appear on the general election ballot; §2937 allows private objections and cost-shifting against petitioners.
- Past applications include costs imposed for Нader and Farnese line of decisions; such costs have historically chilled minor-party ballot access efforts.
- Plaintiffs allege the threat of substantial costs inhibits their future ballot-access activities and seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
- District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing; the Third Circuit reverses, holding plaintiffs have standing to challenge the statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Aspiring Parties have standing to challenge the statutes? | Injury-in-fact from chilling effect and direct regulation of their conduct. | Standing lacking because injuries depend on third-party objections and future events. | Yes; Aspiring Parties have standing. |
| Is injury-in-fact present given past and potential costs? | Past awards and ongoing threats show actual, present injury to political participation. | Injury is speculative and not certain; past costs do not guarantee future harm. | Yes; injury-in-fact shown. |
| Is causation properly shown linking state officials to the injury? | Commonwealth officials administer the code; third-party challenges are a product of the statute's framework. | Injury arises from private challengers, not state action directly. | Causation established; state officials' administration ties to injury. |
| Is redressability satisfied for prospective relief? | Relief would remove the chilling effect and allow ballot access for CGL Parties. | Redressability uncertain due to other factors. | Redressability affirmed; relief would remedy injury. |
| Should the district court separately address the §2937 facial challenge for standing? | Standing exists for all claims; separate facial standing analysis unnecessary at this stage. | Facial challenge requires separate standing analysis. | No separate standing analysis needed; standing exists for all claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (outlined three standing elements; injury must be actual or imminent)
- In re Farnese, 17 A.3d 357 (Pa. 2011) (factors for discretionary cost-shifting under §2937; ‘just’ standard)
- In re Nader, 905 A.2d 450 (Pa. 2006) (costs awarded under §2937; application to nominations and petitions)
- Rogers v. Corbett, 468 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2006) (ballot access signature requirements; state interests in ballot management)
- American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (suit against state election officials; standing analysis focus)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (certainty of impending injury; standing limits; highly context-specific)