Eugene Mazo v. New Jersey Secty State
54f4th124
| 3rd Cir. | 2022Background
- New Jersey law allows primary candidates a ballot designation (slogan) of up to six words and requires written consent before a slogan may include the name of any person or New Jersey-incorporated association (N.J. Stat. §§ 19:23-17; 19:23-25.1).
- Eugene Mazo and Lisa McCormick sought to use slogans that named local party organizations or individuals without obtaining the statutory consent; officials refused and certified ballots without those slogans.
- Mazo and McCormick sued the Secretary of State and county clerks seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, challenging the consent requirement facially and as-applied.
- The District Court held the claims were ripe and not moot, applied the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework, and upheld the consent requirement as constitutional.
- The Third Circuit affirmed: it held Anderson–Burdick governs ballot-slogan rules because they regulate the mechanics of the electoral process, found the consent rule content- and viewpoint-neutral, imposed only minimal burdens, and was justified by state interests (preventing deception/confusion, protecting election integrity and third-party associational rights).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which constitutional test applies to the consent requirement? | Mazo: strict scrutiny/traditional First Amendment because the rule is a content-based restriction on campaign speech. | Way: Anderson–Burdick applies because the rule regulates ballot content — an electoral mechanic. | Anderson–Burdick applies: ballot slogans are part of the voting mechanism and principally regulate electoral mechanics. |
| Is the consent requirement content- or viewpoint-based? | Plaintiffs: the rule is content-based (it depends on whether a slogan names a person/entity) and chills critical speech. | Way: the rule is content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral; any message naming a person/entity is treated the same. | The statute is content- and viewpoint-neutral under City of Austin reasoning; naming matters only to identify the neutral category, not to regulate message. |
| Does the consent requirement violate the First Amendment under Anderson–Burdick? | Plaintiffs: it imposes a severe burden and chills candidates’ speech/association; facially invalid. | Way: burden is minimal, nondiscriminatory, alternatives exist (seek consent or use other channels); state interests outweigh burden. | The burden is minimal (non‑discriminatory, alternatives available, no evidentiary showing of widespread harm); New Jersey’s interests justify the restriction; statute constitutional. |
| Justiciability (ripeness/mootness)? | Plaintiffs: claims moot or unripe because the challenged primary had passed and next petitioning was distant. | Way: claims ripe and not moot (capable of repetition yet evading review; parties intend to run again). | Claims were ripe and fit exception to mootness; court exercised jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (establishing the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework for election-law burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (describing sliding-scale test: severity of burden controls level of scrutiny)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (political leafleting as core political speech not subject to Anderson–Burdick)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (regulation of petition-circulating as core political speech)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (upholding nondiscriminatory fusion ban under Anderson–Burdick)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (distinguishing interactive core political speech in petition contexts)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (content‑based restriction test for sign regulations)
- City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 142 S. Ct. 1464 (clarifying content‑neutral line‑drawing based on function/location)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (Anderson–Burdick applied to voter‑ID laws; balancing state interests and burdens)
- Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (recognizing state interests in preventing voter confusion and regulating ballot mechanics)