Grizzle v. Kemp
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4590
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Grizzle and Simmons, Georgia school board members, challenged HB 251’s nepotism provision §20-2-51(c)(2) as applied to local boards of education; it prohibits immediate family of certain school employees from serving on the local board for elections after July 1, 2009.
- HB 251 amended §20-2-51(c)(2) to bar relatives of school employees from board membership; effective May 5, 2009, later amended May 25, 2010.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and declaration that §20-2-51(c)(2) violates equal protection and First Amendment rights.
- Defendants included the Secretary of State (in his official capacity) and the Bartow County Republican Party; the State Election Board was initially named but later dismissed.
- District Court granted partial preliminary injunction barring enforcement of §20-2-51(c)(2); Secretary of State appealed; Ex Parte Young asserted as basis for jurisdiction.
- Court held the Secretary of State is a proper party under Ex Parte Young and reversed the injunction on the constitutional standard applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretary of State is a proper Ex Parte Young defendant | Grizzle/Simmons argue Secretary is proper defendant | Secretary cannot be sued for enforcing local election rules | Yes; proper party under Ex Parte Young |
| Whether strict scrutiny applied to First/Fourteenth claims | District Court erred by applying strict scrutiny | Less-than-severe burden; strict scrutiny not required | No; court erred in applying strict scrutiny |
| Whether §20-2-51(c)(2) violates equal protection/First Amendment | Nepotism ban burdens candidacy/ballot access | Regulation serves compelling interest; narrowly tailored | Not decided on merits; reversed as to strict scrutiny application; statute not subjected to strict scrutiny on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court 1908) (permits suits against state officials for prospective relief without violating Eleventh Amendment)
- Morial v. Judiciary Comm'n of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1977) (candidacy rights; level of scrutiny for restricted candidacy depends on burden)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (Supreme Court 1982) (one-step-at-a-time approach to legislative classifications; rationales for restrictions)
- Swanson v. Worley, 490 F.3d 894 (11th Cir. 2007) (severity of burden governs level of scrutiny in ballot-access claims)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Supreme Court 1992) (balance between voting rights and state interests; less-than-strict scrutiny for reasonable regulations)