106 F. Supp. 3d 1314
N.D. Ga.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Green Party of Georgia and Constitution Party of Georgia challenge O.C.G.A. § 21-2-170, which requires signatures equal to 1% of registered voters to place a statewide candidate on the Georgia ballot. Plaintiffs say they meet all other statutory requirements but cannot meet the petition threshold.
- Plaintiffs sought summary judgment and injunctive relief to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot; the district court previously dismissed but the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, instructing application of the Anderson balancing test.
- Georgia law offers alternative routes (convention-based qualification under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-180), but Plaintiffs contend those routes are effectively unavailable (e.g., alleged write-in tallying issues), leaving petitioning as the only viable path.
- The court framed the dispute under Anderson/Burdick balancing: (1) assess character and magnitude of the burden on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (2) evaluate the State’s interests (avoiding voter confusion and ballot overcrowding) and whether the statute is a reasonable means to those ends.
- The court found Plaintiffs showed a burden on associational and voting rights but failed to show the burden’s magnitude was appreciable given permissive features of Georgia’s scheme (e.g., 180-day circulation window, broad class of eligible signers, no notarization of signatures historically).
- The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment because Plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence of (a) reasonable diligence in signature-gathering, and (b) that Georgia’s overall scheme unreasonably or discriminatorily burdens minor-party access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 21-2-170’s 1% petition requirement unconstitutionally burdens First/14th Amendment rights | The 1% threshold unduly burdens minor parties and voters; makes ballot access virtually impossible | The 1% rule is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory means to prevent ballot overcrowding and confusion; Georgia’s overall scheme contains mitigating features | Denied summary judgment for Plaintiffs — burden shown but not proven to be unconstitutional as a matter of law on this record |
| Whether Anderson balancing (vs. a litmus test) controls review | Anderson balancing should be applied to weigh burden vs. state interests | Same (defendant relied on precedent supporting reasonableness) | Court applied Anderson balancing per Eleventh Circuit remand |
| Whether strict scrutiny applies | Plaintiffs: severe burden justifies strict scrutiny | Defendant: restriction is nonsevere; apply reasonable/intermediate scrutiny (Burdick) | Court: restriction not shown to be "severe" on this record; strict scrutiny not compelled |
| Whether Plaintiffs proved they were reasonably diligent in attempting qualification | Plaintiffs asserted petitioning fatigue and practical impossibility but offered limited evidence of efforts | Defendant highlighted prior successful minor-party/independent access (Perot, Buchanan, Libertarian) and permissive statutory features | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show reasonable diligence; factual issues remain precluding judgment for Plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (announced balancing test for ballot-access burdens)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (upheld substantial petition percentage requirement under Georgia law)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (recognized associational and voting rights implicated by ballot-access rules)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982) (upheld level-of-support requirements and cautioned against preserving status quo to exclude minor parties)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (permitted substantial regulation of elections; totality of scheme relevant)
- Libertarian Party of Fla. v. Florida, 710 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1983) (reasonableness inquiry for signature requirements; courts should not repeatedly pare numeric thresholds)
- McCrary v. Poythress, 638 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1981) (upheld Georgia’s then-5% requirement when considered with other permissive features)
- New Alliance Party of Ala. v. Hand, 933 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1991) (discussed disparities between major and minor party treatment and evidence of diligence)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (clarified that nonsevere burdens are reviewed for reasonableness rather than under strict scrutiny)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (recognized state authority to raise ballot-access thresholds to avoid overcrowding)