Constitution Party v. Cortes, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10029

Background

The Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties (the "Aspiring Parties") sued Pennsylvania election officials (Secretary Cortes and Commissioner Marks) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the interaction of two state election provisions: the high signature requirement for non-major-party statewide nominees (25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2911(b)) and the private-party challenge process to nomination papers (25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2937).
Non-major-party statewide candidates must collect a large number of signatures (e.g., 21,775 in 2016 under § 2911(b)) and file nomination papers that, if challenged under § 2937, trigger a Commonwealth Court review and can lead to cost-shifting.
After In re Nader and subsequent cases, substantial litigation fees and court-ordered costs deterred minor/political-body candidates from running; Aspiring Parties alleged § 2911(b) and § 2937 together impose near-certain, substantial financial burdens that chill associational and ballot-access rights.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the Aspiring Parties on an as-applied challenge, holding the combined effect of §§ 2911(b) and 2937 unconstitutionally burdened non-major parties; it rejected a facial invalidation of § 2937.
On appeal the Commonwealth limited its arguments to two technical points: (1) the named state officials lack a sufficient enforcement connection to be proper defendants under Ex parte Young/§ 1983; and (2) the District Court’s as-applied declaratory relief is incoherent and provides no practical benefit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court’s as-applied declaratory judgment provides practical relief	Aichele: Prevents Commonwealth officials from enforcing both §§ 2911(b) and 2937 together against Aspiring Parties; thus it forecloses the private-challenge mechanism as applied	Cortes: Order is incoherent; statutes remain on the books and private parties and Commonwealth Court can still challenge/enforce § 2937, so no practical benefit	Court: The as-applied relief is coherent and practical; officials may not enforce both provisions together against the Aspiring Parties, so the injunction/decl. relief is effective
Whether Secretary Cortes and Commissioner Marks are proper defendants under Ex parte Young/§ 1983	Aichele: Officials administer the election code (receive/validate nomination papers, prepare ballots) and thus are proper defendants for injunctive/declaratory relief	Cortes: Officials are mere bystanders; enforcement occurs via private challengers and Commonwealth Court, so officials lack the necessary enforcement connection	Court: Officials have a sufficient connection (statutory duties and administrative role) to enforcement; Ex parte Young applicable; they are proper defendants
Whether a challenge to the signature requirement is foreclosed by prior precedent (Rogers)	Aichele: This is an as-applied challenge to the combined scheme, not a facial challenge to § 2911(b) alone; Rogers is distinguishable	Cortes: Rogers upheld the signature requirement’s facial validity, suggesting challenge should fail	Court: Distinguishes Rogers; facial validity of § 2911(b) remains but combined as-applied burden can be unconstitutional; Rogers does not foreclose this claim
Whether relief would improperly require splitting liability among actors (i.e., targeting private challengers or courts instead)	Aichele: Commonwealth cannot evade § 1983 review by pointing to third parties when state officials administer the empowering scheme	Cortes: The true injurers are private challengers and Commonwealth Court, not the executive officials sued	Court: Rejects fragmentation; officials administer the statutory scheme and can be enjoined under Ex parte Young to prevent enforcement that produces the harm

Key Cases Cited

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (distinguishes facial vs. as-applied challenges and remedy breadth)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (state-official suits to enjoin unconstitutional state-law enforcement)
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (§ 1983 claim against state election official challenging ballot-qualification system)
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (multiple facially valid election provisions can operate in tandem to burden rights)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (review totality of election laws for constitutional barriers)
Rogers v. Corbett, 468 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2006) (upholding facial validity of Pennsylvania signature requirement)
Aichele (Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele), 757 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2014) (standing and third-party enforcement arguments; prior appellate ruling in same litigation)
Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli, 343 F.3d 632 (3d Cir. 2003) (standard for summary judgment review in this Circuit)
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Bell Atl. Pa., 271 F.3d 491 (3d Cir. 2001) (discussion of Ex parte Young and suits against state officers)
United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2010) (facial vs. as-applied challenge distinction)