964 F.3d 252
4th Cir.2020Background
- North Carolina requires unaffiliated candidates to be a “qualified voter,” gather signatures (1.5% of relevant voters for statewide/districtwide offices), and submit petitions by the primary date (March 3, 2020). Write-in candidates must collect a threshold of signatures (100–500 depending on office) before votes for them will be counted.
- Plaintiffs: Kyle Kopitke (Michigan resident seeking to run for President as an unaffiliated candidate), Gregory Buscemi (North Carolina resident seeking to run for U.S. House as an unaffiliated candidate), and William Clark (North Carolina voter who wants to cast protest/write-in votes).
- Plaintiffs sued the North Carolina State Board of Elections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations (ballot access for candidates and right to have write-in votes counted).
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim (found only modest burdens justified by state interests); plaintiffs appealed; Board did not cross-appeal the standing arguments but raised them in briefing.
- The Fourth Circuit: (1) held Kopitke lacks standing to challenge the “qualified voter” requirement and Clark lacks standing to challenge the write-in signature rule (both dismissals without prejudice), and (2) held Kopitke and Buscemi have standing to challenge signature and filing-date rules but failed to state a claim because the requirements impose only modest burdens justified by the State’s regulatory interests; affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kopitke may challenge §163-122(a)’s “qualified voter” requirement (as applied to an out-of-state presidential candidate) | Kopitke: the requirement bars non‑NC registrants from ballot access for federal office in conflict with the Constitution | Board: term isn’t limited to NC-registered voters; Board has not and will not enforce residency exclusion against Kopitke | Kopitke lacks standing; dismissal without prejudice because no credible threat of enforcement |
| Whether Clark has standing to challenge write-in signature requirement that prevents some write-in votes from being counted | Clark: the rule infringes his right to cast protest/write-in votes that will be counted | Board: Clark’s claim is speculative—he has not identified actual candidates whose votes would be disqualified | Clark lacks standing; dismissal without prejudice as injury is speculative |
| Whether the filing deadline (primary day) for unaffiliated candidates is unconstitutional | Kopitke/Buscemi: deadline is too early and prevents late decisions to run; combined with signatures creates heavy burden | Board: deadline near primary is routine; modest burden justified to promote orderly elections | Filing deadline imposes only a modest burden; upheld |
| Whether the 1.5% signature requirement for unaffiliated candidates is unconstitutional | Kopitke/Buscemi: 1.5% is too high and not justified by state interests | Board: 1.5% is below thresholds previously upheld; serves important interests (prevent overcrowding, reduce confusion) | 1.5% is a modest burden justified by important regulatory interests; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III injury-in-fact must be concrete and imminent)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (speculative chain of possibilities insufficient for standing)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (threatened injury must be certainly impending)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for election-law burdens; protest-vote claim addressed)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (states may regulate time/place/manner to maintain order in elections)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (states may require preliminary showing of support for ballot access)
- American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (3%–5% petition thresholds are not facially invalid)
- Pisano v. Strach, 743 F.3d 927 (4th Cir. 2014) (modest signature requirements and deadlines near primary generally impose only modest burdens)
- McLaughlin v. N.C. Bd. of Elections, 65 F.3d 1215 (4th Cir. 1995) (identified previously severe ballot-access burdens in North Carolina)
- Libertarian Party of Va. v. Alcorn, 826 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2016) (state must articulate important regulatory interests to justify modest burdens)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for ballot-access restrictions)
- Wood v. Meadows, 207 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2000) (upheld independent candidate filing deadline on primary day under certain circumstances)