Cook v. Popplewell, 33 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1377

Cook, a Russell County deputy clerk, disclosed her intent to run against incumbent Clerk Popplewell in August 2005 and was discharged shortly after.
Cook filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the circuit court granted summary judgment, ruling candidacy lacks constitutional protection.
Court of Appeals affirmed, and this Court granted discretionary review to consider whether there is a First Amendment right to candidacy.
Court previously held Crutchfield that candidacy standing alone is not constitutionally protected; whether to overrule was debated, but the majority kept Crutchfield intact.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on official-capacity immunity and Monell grounds; the court held counties (and officials) are subject to § 1983 and that Popplewell lacked final policymaking authority to establish county policy.
Court ultimately concluded there is no First Amendment right to candidacy per se, and Cook’s § 1983 claim fails; Fourteenth Amendment due process claim was not addressed due to briefing deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to candidacy per se	Cook contends candidacy is protected by the First Amendment.	Crutchfield holds no constitutional right to candidacy.	No First Amendment right to candidacy per se.
§ 1983 claim against official-capacity actors	Discharge violated federal rights by acting under color of state law.	No official-policy basis; immunity defenses; Carver/Crutchfield guidance.	Summary judgment affirmed; no cognizable § 1983 claim against official-capacity defendants.
Immunity analysis under state law	County and Clerk may be liable under § 1983 notwithstanding state immunity.	Immunity should shield them absent official-cap policymaking authority.	No adequate evidence Cook had final policy authority; official-capacity and Monell liability not shown.
Fourteenth Amendment due process review	Discharge implicates due process protections.	Not adequately briefed; no review.	Court declines to decide due process claim due to deficient briefing.

Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972) (no fundamental right to candidacy; ballot access measures scrutinized only to degree)
Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982) (barriers to candidacy not necessarily subject to strict scrutiny; balancing approach noted)
Crutchfield, 157 S.W.3d 621 (Ky.2005) (no constitutional right to candidacy under Kentucky law)
Carver v. Dennis, 104 F.3d 847 (6th Cir.1997) (no First Amendment right to candidacy where termination not tied to beliefs)
Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825 (7th Cir.1977) (no per se First Amendment protection for candidacy)
Wilbur v. Mahan, 3 F.3d 214 (7th Cir.1993) (deputy sheriff’s candidacy not protected per se; Branti/Elrod context)
Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir.2010) (candidacy may have modicum protection; court cautions on Randall’s reasoning)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (earliest governing framework for patronage dismissals and political affiliation)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (first amendment protection in campaign context; limitations on speech)