History
  • No items yet
midpage
De La Fuente v. South Carolina Democratic Party
164 F. Supp. 3d 794
D.S.C.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • De La Fuente filed timely notice of candidacy and paid the $2,500 fee to the South Carolina Democratic Party (SCDP); the SCDP Executive Council declined to certify him on Dec. 7, 2015.
  • SCDP’s Delegate Selection Plan limited certification to candidates “generally acknowledged or recognized in news media throughout the United States” and “actively campaigning for the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary.”
  • De La Fuente sued (Feb. 2, 2016) seeking declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction ordering the Party to notify the State to place him on the Feb. 27, 2016 primary ballot (or to delay the primary).
  • Court held a preliminary-injunction hearing Feb. 24, 2016; De La Fuente later amended the complaint and agreed to dismiss Secretary of State Hammond and the State Election Commission defendants.
  • Court applied the Winter/Real Truth preliminary-injunction standard and treated the requested relief as a mandatory injunction (disfavored). The court denied the injunction principally on laches and also found no likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether SCDP’s refusal to certify De La Fuente for the primary ballot violated due process/vagueness principles SCDP’s media-recognition/active-campaigning standard is vague, arbitrary, and deprived him of Fourteenth Amendment process The standard is a legitimate, sufficiently specific means to limit ballot access and avoid frivolous candidates; Executive Council applied it reasonably Court: No likelihood of success; the standard is not unconstitutionally vague as applied and Council did not act arbitrarily
Whether SCDP’s action constitutes state action for § 1983 purposes De La Fuente assumed party action is state action and sued under § 1983 Defendants relied on state law structure but court assumed state-action for purposes of the motion without deciding Court assumed state action for this motion but denied relief on other grounds
Whether racial discrimination/equal-protection claim supports relief De La Fuente alleged exclusion based on Hispanic status (all certified candidates were non-Hispanic) Defendants: no factual allegations showing discriminatory intent or disparate treatment Court: Conclusory allegations insufficient; no likelihood of success on equal-protection claim
Whether equitable factors (irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest) warrant a preliminary injunction or delay of the primary De La Fuente argued exclusion causes irreparable injury to his ballot-access rights and sought immediate relief Defendants stressed extreme prejudice, disruption of ballots (military/overseas ballots mailed), and laches given delay in filing and pursuit Court: Denied. Found De La Fuente’s delay unreasonable (laches), irreparable harm not clearly shown, equities and public interest favor denying injunction

Key Cases Cited

  • Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiff must show likelihood of success and irreparable harm for injunction)
  • Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir.) (vacated on other grounds) (reiterating Winter standard in Fourth Circuit preliminary-injunction analysis)
  • Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for burdens on voting rights)
  • Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972) (state may regulate number of candidates on ballot to avoid burden and confusion)
  • Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (election regulation balancing and ballot-access principles)
  • Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (color-of-state-law/state-action framework for § 1983 claims)
  • Kay v. Austin, 621 F.2d 809 (6th Cir. 1980) (upholding media-recognition standard as not void for vagueness)
  • LaRouche v. Sheehan, 591 F. Supp. 917 (D. Md. 1984) (upholding media-recognition criteria and discretion in selection as constitutional)
  • In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (mandatory injunctions are disfavored and subject to exacting scrutiny)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: De La Fuente v. South Carolina Democratic Party
Court Name: District Court, D. South Carolina
Date Published: Feb 25, 2016
Citation: 164 F. Supp. 3d 794
Docket Number: CA No. 3:16-cv-00322-CMC
Court Abbreviation: D.S.C.