Constitution Party of Pennsylv v. Pedro Cortes, 877 F.3d 480

Plaintiffs (Constitution, Green, Libertarian Parties of PA and individual members) sued Pennsylvania officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging signature-collection rules as violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs previously prevailed on an as-applied constitutional challenge; the Third Circuit affirmed that the statutes burdened rights and remanded for remedy.
On remand, plaintiffs asked the district court to order placement on the 2016 ballot or, alternatively, require they meet signature totals equal to major parties but without county-distribution rules.
The Commonwealth proposed, and the district court adopted, a remedial injunction imposing county-based signature quotas (e.g., 5,000 signatures for Governor with ≥250 from at least 10 counties) drawn from pending state legislation.
Plaintiffs argued those county-distribution requirements amount to unconstitutional vote-dilution under the Equal Protection Clause; the district court entered the order without making factual findings or explaining its analysis.
The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s injunction and remanded because the record lacked on-the-record fact-findings required by Anderson/Moore line of cases to evaluate vote-dilution and burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are county-based signature-distribution requirements unconstitutional vote-dilution?	County-based quotas dilute votes and violate Equal Protection by allowing minority locales to control access; Moore and Anderson condemn such schemes.	County-based requirements ensure statewide support and prevent frivolous candidates; state interest justifies the rule.	Court did not decide constitutionality on the merits; vacated injunctive order for lack of factual findings needed to apply Anderson/Moore analysis.
Was the district court’s remedial order supported by adequate factual findings?	Plaintiffs argued district court failed to make requisite factual findings about voter distribution and burden.	Commonwealth pointed to state court precedent and asserted negligible impact; urged deference given time pressure.	Held: inadequate — remedy vacated because vote-dilution analysis is fact-intensive and the district court made no on-the-record findings.
May the district court reimpose county-based requirements on remand?	Plaintiffs cautioned against county quotas absent fact-based showing of no appreciable impact.	Commonwealth maintained such requirements can be constitutional if shown to have no appreciable impact; cited Zautra and state cases.	Held: Yes, but only if the district court, after fact-finding, concludes under Anderson that the burdens are not appreciable and the restrictions are justified.

Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (struck county-distribution ballot signature rules as vote-dilution violating one-person, one-vote)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for assessing burdens on ballot access and associational rights)
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) (one-person, one-vote principle articulated)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (apportionment and equal representation under Equal Protection)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political questions and judicial review of apportionment)
Zautra v. Miller, 348 F. Supp. 847 (D. Utah 1972) (upheld minimal county signature quotas as having no appreciable impact)
Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli, 343 F.3d 632 (3d Cir. 2003) (Anderson applied in this circuit to ballot access and associational claims)