De La Fuente v. State, 278 F. Supp. 3d 1146

Background

Plaintiff Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente sued California and Secretary of State Alex Padilla challenging Cal. Elec. Code §§ 8400 and 8403 (petition-signature percentage and circulation period for independent presidential candidates) as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The suit sought injunctive relief.
§ 8400 required independent presidential candidates to submit signatures equal to 1% of registered voters (178,039 for 2016). § 8403 limited circulation to between 193 and 88 days before the election (a 105-day window).
De La Fuente testified he declined to petition in California in 2016 because he believed collecting the necessary signatures would be cost-prohibitive (he estimated $3–4 million), and he instead qualified as an independent in 20 states; he intends to run in 2020.
The State moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment; the court converted to summary judgment, received supplemental briefing and evidence, and heard oral argument.
The district court found De La Fuente failed to show §§ 8400 and 8403 imposed a severe burden on his or others’ ballot access; the requirements are consistent with other states and serve California’s interests in a manageable ballot. The court granted defendants’ motion and entered judgment for the State.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §§ 8400 and 8403 impose a "severe" burden triggering strict scrutiny	§§ 8400 and 8403 unduly burden De La Fuente’s and his supporters’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by making California ballot access prohibitively difficult	The provisions are neutral, generally applicable, and do not severely impair ballot access; any burden is minor and justified by legitimate state interests	Not severe; less exacting review applies
Whether the one-percent signature and timing requirements are reasonably related to state interests	The one-percent and timing rules are unnecessary; a much lower signature threshold (e.g., ~5,000) would avoid "ballot clutter" without burdening rights	The requirements reasonably further important state interests: avoiding ballot overcrowding, voter confusion, and maintaining manageable elections	Requirements are reasonably related to California’s important regulatory interests and thus constitutional under reduced scrutiny
Whether De La Fuente established causation between the statutes and his absence from CA ballot	He argues the rules effectively prevented his appearance on the CA general election ballot	The record shows he chose not to attempt collection, relied on unsupported cost estimates, and had limited volunteer support and voter enthusiasm	No causal showing; nonappearance attributed to candidate choices and lack of demonstrated support rather than the statutes
Whether comparable jurisdictions or evidence show that California’s scheme is outside the mainstream	Cites cases and expert testimony suggesting lower thresholds in other states and alleged severe constriction elsewhere	California’s 1% requirement is in line with many states; historical elections show multiple candidates on CA ballots and no constitutional defect	CA’s requirements fall within mainstream practice and survive review

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (sets balancing test for ballot-access restrictions)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (balancing based on severity of burden; strict scrutiny if severe)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (states may require preliminary showing of support to limit frivolous candidates)
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (upholding substantial signature gathering burdens as permissible for presidential candidates)
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (less exacting review for reasonable, nondiscriminatory ballot regulations)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.) (application of Anderson/Burdick balancing)
Arizona Green Party v. Reagan, 838 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (de minimis burden finding and state interest in avoiding confusion)
Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.) (severe vs. lesser burdens framework)