910 F.3d 438
9th Cir.2018Background
- Emidio Soltysik, a Socialist Party USA leader, ran for California State Assembly; California law limits ballot "party preference" labels to parties that qualify under Cal. Elec. Code §5100, so Soltysik was shown as "Party Preference: None."
- Soltysik sued California officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights: freedom of association, viewpoint discrimination, and compelled speech. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), applying Anderson/Burdick balancing and concluding the burden was slight and the statute viewpoint neutral and not compelled speech. Soltysik appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit panel reviewed de novo and held that Soltysik had plausibly pleaded a burden that is "more than slight but not severe," warranting remand for factual development under Anderson/Burdick.
- The majority found the label "Party Preference: None" potentially misleading (suggesting lack of preferences or dissociation from qualified parties) and that the burden falls unequally on candidates affiliated with nonqualified parties. It rejected dismissal because the State had not yet evidenced that its interests justified the burden or that no less-restrictive alternatives existed.
- Judge Rawlinson dissented in part, arguing precedent treats similar burdens as "slight," that states need not make an evidentiary showing at the pleading stage, and that alternative channels for communication reduce any constitutional injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California’s rule requiring nonqualified-party candidates to be labeled "Party Preference: None" violates freedom of association/equal protection | Soltysik: label is misleading, deprives him of party-identifying cue and burdens association and electoral prospects | State: rule is neutral, preserves ballot integrity, avoids confusion; burden is slight | Court: burden plausibly "more than slight" (not severe); remand for factual development under Anderson/Burdick |
| Whether the rule is viewpoint discrimination | Soltysik: denying label to nonqualified parties discriminates against minority viewpoints | State: criteria apply neutrally to all parties regardless of viewpoint | Court: relevant to Anderson/Burdick; cannot resolve at pleading stage; allow factual development |
| Whether the rule compels speech in violation of First Amendment | Soltysik: forced inaccurate label compels speech and misrepresents affiliation | State: "None" is accurate under statutory definition of "party"; ballots are state-controlled, not candidate speech | Court: cannot decide as a matter of law on the pleadings; remand for evidence and factual findings |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny and burden-fitting (Anderson/Burdick application) | Soltysik: label imposes significant practical burden at the ballot box requiring more exacting means-end fit | State: burden is not severe; important regulatory interests suffice without narrow tailoring | Court: burden is between slight and severe; Anderson/Burdick requires assessment of alternatives and evidentiary showing — remand for record building |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (balancing framework for election restrictions)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (applying sliding-scale scrutiny to ballot regulations)
- Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholding similar California "No Party Preference" rule on summary judgment)
- Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (Anderson/Burdick requires means-end fit; alternatives may matter)
- Rosen v. Brown, 970 F.2d 169 (6th Cir. 1992) (party labels as significant voter cues at point of choice)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (states need not provide elaborate empirical proof of electoral interests)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (state interest in requiring modicum of support before granting ballot party recognition)
- Libertarian Party v. Eu, 28 Cal.3d 535 (Cal. 1980) (state may limit on-ballot party designations to qualified parties)