Green Party of Tennessee v. Hargett
7 F. Supp. 3d 772
M.D. Tenn.2014Background
- Green Party of Tennessee and Constitution Party of Tennessee sued Tennessee election officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging state ballot-access rules enacted/amended in 2011–2012.
- Plaintiffs had court-ordered placement of their candidates on the 2012 ballot but received under 5% of the vote; state statutes (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 2-1-104(a)(24),(31) and 2-13-107(f)) then threatened loss of recognition and future ballot access.
- § 2-1-104(a)(24) (2011) requires petition signatures equal to 2.5% of votes in the last gubernatorial election to qualify as a “Recognized minor party” (about 40,039 signatures); court previously held this requirement burdensome.
- § 2-13-107(f) (2012) provides that a newly recognized minor party is recognized only for the current election year and must meet the higher “statewide political party” standard (5% of votes) thereafter; statewide parties get a four-year period to meet the 5% threshold per § 2-1-104(a)(31).
- Plaintiffs argued the statutes (alone and together) violate First and Fourteenth Amendment associational and ballot-access rights, equal protection (unequal time to qualify), and that § 2-1-114 (affidavit disavowing advocacy of overthrow) violates free speech; defendants relied on precedents upholding two-tier schemes and argued nonenforcement or compliance by major parties.
- The court concluded the challenged provisions (signature requirement, one-election rule, unequal time, and affidavit requirement) are unconstitutional as applied to these plaintiffs and ordered restored ballot access for at least three calendar years after November 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2.5% petition-signature requirement to become a "Recognized minor party" | 2.5% is exclusionary and effectively impossible for minor parties; prior rulings showed severe burden on associational rights | Comparable percentage requirements have been upheld; 2.5% is a reasonable state regulation | As applied to plaintiffs, the 2.5% requirement unduly burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and is unconstitutional |
| One-election rule (§ 2-13-107(f)) requiring newly recognized minor parties to obtain 5% in that single election to retain status | Forbids development of new parties; plaintiffs had only one election to achieve 5% while statewide parties get four years — effectively forecloses development | Two-tier systems like Georgia and Texas have been upheld; state interest in stability and ballot management | Combination of § 2-13-107(f) and § 2-1-104(a)(31) unduly burdens plaintiffs’ associational and ballot-access rights; unconstitutional as applied |
| Equal protection — unequal time to meet 5% (1 year for minors v. 4 years for statewide parties) | Statute treats similarly situated political entities differently without neutral justification; denies equal electoral opportunity | Classification reflects administrative/legislative choices and is permissible | Statute violates Equal Protection as applied — unequal timeframes are not politically neutral and burden minorities |
| § 2-1-114 affidavit requirement disavowing advocacy of overthrow | Compelled affidavit chills protected speech; statute is overbroad under Brandenburg/Whitcomb | Major parties have filed affidavits and statute not enforced; plaintiffs lack standing or claim is moot | Compelled affidavit violates First Amendment; statute unconstitutional as applied (chilling effect) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial-challenge standard)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (upholding Georgia two-tier ballot-access system)
- American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (upholding Texas two-tier signature/vote thresholds)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (balancing test for burdens on associational/voting rights)
- Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (right to create and develop new political parties)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (equal opportunity for new parties on ballots)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (state interest in political stability does not justify complete insulation of two-party system)
- Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (struck down affidavit barring parties that advocate overthrow)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (imminent lawless action standard)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (Sixth Circuit discussion of signature/deadline burdens)