171 F. Supp. 3d 1340
N.D. Ga.2016Background
- The Green Party of Georgia and the Constitution Party of Georgia sued Secretary of State Brian Kemp challenging O.C.G.A. § 21-2-170, which requires nomination petitions signed by 1% of registered voters (≈50,334 in 2016) for statewide/presidential ballot access.
- Plaintiffs allege the 1% petition requirement (and related rules like notarization, 180‑day window) unduly burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment associational and voting rights and effectively bars minor-party presidential access.
- The district court previously dismissed the complaint; the Eleventh Circuit remanded, directing application of the Anderson balancing test.
- The developed record shows Georgia’s 1% requirement is among the most stringent nationwide, few third‑party presidential candidates qualified in Georgia since 1986, and petition drives impose large time and monetary costs.
- The court held cross‑motions for summary judgment after additional discovery, found the burdens severe, applied strict scrutiny (and alternatively a deferential Anderson/Burdick balancing), declared § 21‑2‑170 unconstitutional as applied to presidential candidates, permanently enjoined enforcement, and set an interim remedial signature requirement of 7,500 until the legislature acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia’s 1% petition requirement for presidential ballot access violates First and Fourteenth Amendment rights | The 1% rule (plus notarization and time limits) imposes a severe burden on party association and voters’ ability to cast effective votes; strict scrutiny should apply; the law is not narrowly tailored | The requirement is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulation justified by important state interests (avoiding voter confusion and ballot overcrowding); lesser (Burdick) review applies; precedent upholds similar rules | The court found the burden severe, applied strict scrutiny (and alternatively Burke/Anderson balancing), held the 1% requirement unconstitutional as applied to presidential candidates |
| Whether the State has shown a compelling or sufficiently important interest to justify the restriction | Plaintiffs: Georgia produced no evidence of actual voter confusion or overcrowding and presidential elections implicate a national interest that reduces the State’s regulatory weight | Kemp: State interest in efficient administration and preventing frivolous candidacies justifies signature thresholds; precedent does not require proof of actual confusion prior to enactment | The court found Georgia’s asserted interests insufficiently tailored; no record evidence of actual voter confusion; state interest is weaker for presidential elections; 1% fails even under deferential balancing |
| Whether plaintiffs were insufficiently diligent or lacked support (factual defense) | Plaintiffs produced evidence of substantial, repeated petition efforts, costs, and practical obstacles (notaries, 180‑day limit) showing burdens are statutory, not merely practical | Kemp argued plaintiffs lack a modicum of support and their organizational shortcomings explain failures to qualify | Court rejected state’s factual excuses as dispositive; record showed systemic statutory burdens contributing to failure to qualify |
| Appropriate remedy and interim relief | Plaintiffs sought relief to permit ballot access; urged lower signature thresholds (argued ≤5,000) | Kemp urged upholding statute or at least leaving setting of thresholds to legislature | Court permanently enjoined enforcement against presidential candidates and imposed an interim, practical remedy: petitions of 7,500 valid signatures (until legislative action) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (adopted balancing test for ballot-access restrictions)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (states may require a "significant modicum of support" for ballot access)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (associational and voting rights implicated by ballot access rules)
- Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (concerns about equal protection and ballot access disparities)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (states may condition ballot access on a modicum of support)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (less exacting review for reasonable, nondiscriminatory election regulations)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (state interests can justify restrictions on party activity when not severe)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (applied strict scrutiny where combined regulations severely burdened associational rights)
- Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (applied strict scrutiny to Arizona petition/deadline restrictions that severely burdened out‑of‑state supporters)
- Stein v. Alabama Secretary of State, 774 F.3d 689 (11th Cir. 2014) (upheld Alabama scheme on different balance; discussed distinctions between party‑label vs. independent access)