Green Party of Tennessee v. Tre Hargett
493 F. App'x 686
6th Cir.2012Background
- This 2011 federal lawsuit challenges Tennessee's ballot-access framework for minor parties (Green Party and Constitution Party).
- The district court in February 2012 held the 2.5% signature requirement and 119-day filing deadline unconstitutional as applied, and recognized the parties for ballot placement on the November 2012 ballot.
- The district court also ordered a random drawing to determine ballot order, finding the party-order provision unconstitutional, and Tennessee sought a stay.
- Tennessee amended the ballot-access statutes in May 2012, allowing minor parties to nominate by party rules (or by primary), with petition deadlines shortened to 90 days if using party rules; the party-order provision remained unchanged.
- The state’s stay motion was denied as to the party-candidate link but granted as to the random-drawing requirement; the court noted further merits briefing would follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the ballot-access scheme a First Amendment burden on minor parties? | Green argues 2.5%/119-day schemes unconstitutional. | Tennessee contends safeguards prevent frivolous ballot access. | No stay for the party-candidate link; district ruling likely unconstitutional at merits stage. |
| Does the party-order provision violate Equal Protection by unduly favoring major/minor parties? | Green contends the order creates a voting cue unconstitutional under First/Equal Protection. | State argues provision reflects party strength and statutory ordering is permissible. | Stay granted for the random-drawing requirement; merits on party-order unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (stay factors require discretion and irreparable harm assessment)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1971) (state interests in ballot access can justify thresholds)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1997) (whether a party has substantial support affects access rights)
- Family Trust Found. of Ky., Inc. v. Ky. Judicial Conduct Comm’n, 388 F.3d 224 (6th Cir. 2004) (stay standard requires serious questions and irreparable harm)