Green Party of Tennessee v. Tre Hargett
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24645
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- This case challenges Tennessee’s 2011 ballot-access scheme for minor parties as facially unconstitutional.
- Green Party of Tennessee and Constitution Party of Tennessee sued in 2011 alleging Fourteenth/Fourth Amendment burdens, vagueness, and First Amendment restrictions.
- 2011 amendments created a “recognized minor party” category with a 2.5% petition signature requirement and 119-day filing deadline.
- A second route allows minor parties to nominate by their own rules, with a 90-day petition deadline, and relaxes nomination requirements if party rules are used.
- The district court granted summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on most claims; Tennessee appealed, leading to partial stay on ballot-order drawing; subsequent amendments and remand followed.
- The court now reverses and remands for reconsideration under the amended statutory framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of party-primary claim | Green Party argued the claim remains live. | Tennessee contends amended law moots the primary-req. claim. | Remainder of the claim not moot; remand for reconsideration. |
| 2.5% signature and 119-day deadline constitutionality | Signature/deadline burden First Amendment rights. | Statute facially permissible; now offset by alternative route. | Not moot; remand to assess combined effect under new framework. |
| Vagueness and delegation in § 2-1-104(a)(24) | Provision grants unfettered discretion to the coordinator. | Discretion limited to petition form; not impermissibly vague or delegation. | Not impermissibly vague or delegatory; sustained under reasonable construction. |
| Constitutionality of party-order provision | Order favoring majority party violates equal protection/First Amendment. | Evidence of ballot-order effects lacking; not proven on record. | Facial challenge rejected; remand for factual record development. |
| Restriction on using words 'independent' or 'nonpartisan' in minor-party names | Standing and injury in fact support challenge to name restriction. | No imminent, personal injury; standing lacking for the challenged claim. | Standing lacking; issue dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (facial challenges disfavored; ballot-position evidence required)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact requires concrete, particularized, imminent harm)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (standing requires concrete personal injury; not conjectural)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1974) (standing/ballot access jurisprudence)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1968) (ballot access and party qualification standards)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1971) (signature requirements upheld in certain contexts)
- Taft Broad. Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1991) (issues not litigated in trial court not appropriate for appellate review)