Green Party of Tennessee v. Tre Hargett, 767 F.3d 533

Background

Green Party of Tennessee and Constitution Party of Tennessee sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking minor-party ballot access and challenging Tennessee’s party-ordering statute.
Pre-2012 regime: parties could gain ballot access either by (1) reaching 5% in a statewide race (automatic) or (2) filing a petition with signatures equaling 2.5% of prior gubernatorial vote by an early-April (119 days before primary) deadline; certain primaries were mandatory.
In 2012 Tennessee amended the law: minor parties may nominate by their own rules (avoiding primary) but then must file petitions 90 days before the general election; parties that hold primaries remain subject to the 119-day deadline and 2.5% requirement.
District court twice granted plaintiffs summary judgment invalidating (a) the 2.5% requirement combined with the filing deadline and (b) the preferential party-ordering statute; this Court previously reversed in part and remanded because of the statutory amendments and incomplete factual record.
On remand the district court again granted plaintiffs summary judgment; this Court (panel) now holds plaintiffs have standing but reverses summary judgment on both ballot-access and ballot-ordering claims and vacates the attorney-fees award for recalculation, remanding for factual development.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue	Plaintiffs claim Tennessee’s ballot rules (esp. 2.5% rule and deadlines) injure their associational and speech rights and have practical effect on their political activity	Defendants argue statutory amendments give plaintiffs alternative routes (nomination by party rules, later 90-day deadline) and thus plaintiffs lack a concrete injury	Court: Plaintiffs have standing; continuing 2.5% requirement and past/actual effects establish concrete, particularized injury
2.5% signature requirement + deadlines (Ballot access)	2.5% requirement combined with early deadlines and Tennessee’s overall framework imposes a severe First Amendment burden making ballot access effectively impossible	State defends 2.5% as a permissible show of support and cites administrative interests (ballot preparation, avoiding confusion); argues changes eased burdens	Court: 2.5% not facially invalid; existing record is insufficient to determine whether current scheme (including 90-day/119-day options) imposes a severe burden — reverse summary judgment and remand for further factual development
Preferential ballot-ordering statute	Preferential party ordering (majority, minority, recognized minor) gives entrenched parties advantage; empirical evidence shows ballot position affects votes hence violates First and Fourteenth Amendments	State contends plaintiffs lacked evidence that order affects Tennessee voters; ballots are formatted (party-block) in ways that reduce ordering effects	Court: Factual dispute exists about whether order affects voter behavior; record (conflicting studies and ballots) insufficient for summary judgment — reverse and remand for development
Attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988	Plaintiffs argue they were prevailing parties when district court initially enjoined old statutes and are entitled to fees for district-court litigation	Defendants argue appellate reversal and statutory changes negate prevailing-party status and fee entitlement	Court: Plaintiffs were prevailing parties as to the district court’s initial judgment; however district court abused discretion in awarding full fees without reassessing after partial reversal and statutory changes — vacate fee award and remand for recalculation

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (announces the burden-balancing framework for election-law challenges)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (clarifies severity-of-burden inquiry and tailoring under Anderson)
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1971) (upholds petition-signature requirements as permissible means to show party support)
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1974) (approves certain party-support thresholds and upholds petition requirements under constitutional standards)
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1974) (examines additional petition-circulation restrictions that can make a signature threshold unconstitutional)
Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (balances deadline timing and signature thresholds; factual context can render early deadlines unconstitutional)
McLain v. Meier, 637 F.2d 1159 (8th Cir. 1980) (analyzes preferential ballot-ordering and notes empirical questions about position effects)
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (defines "prevailing party" for attorney-fee awards)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1968) (recognizes ballot access as integral to associational and voting rights)