Independent Party of Florida v. Secretary, State of Florida, 967 F.3d 1277

Florida allows presidential ballot access by either affiliating with a qualified national party (registered as a national committee with the FEC) or by submitting petitions signed by 1% of Florida registered voters.
The Independent Party of Florida and the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) sought to place presidential candidates on Florida’s ballot without affiliating or meeting the 1% requirement; PSL has already selected its candidate.
Plaintiffs sued the Florida Secretary of State and moved for a preliminary injunction, alleging the 1% requirement violates the First Amendment (Anderson-Burdick) and the Equal Protection Clause by privileging parties that affiliate with national parties.
The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding the requirements did not impose a severe burden and that Florida’s interest in a modicum of support justified the law; the state’s current regime is less restrictive than the earlier 3% rule the Eleventh Circuit previously upheld.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held PSL has Article III standing and, applying Anderson-Burdick balancing, concluded plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on First Amendment or Equal Protection claims because Florida’s dual-path regime reasonably advances legitimate state and national interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring challenge	PSL has a selected candidate and faces imminent denial of ballot access, so it suffers an imminent injury	Secretary says plaintiffs lack imminent injury (citing cases like Bernbeck)	PSL has Article III standing to seek relief
First Amendment (Anderson–Burdick): Is the 1% petition requirement unconstitutional?	1% signature rule unconstitutionally burdens associational and ballot-access rights	Requirement is not a severe burden; alleviating factors (long collection period, waiver of verification fee) and state interest in preliminary showing of support justify it	Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; burden not severe; Anderson-Burdick balancing favors the State
Equal Protection: Does affiliation route discriminate against non-affiliating parties?	Affiliation option creates unequal treatment by exempting nationally affiliated minor parties from the 1% requirement	Affiliation reflects relevant difference (national support); states may tailor routes to ballot for differently situated parties	Not a violation; different routes justified by the national interest in presidential elections and the burden on non-affiliated parties is not severe

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing test for ballot-access restrictions)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applies Anderson balancing to election regulations)
Libertarian Party of Fla. v. Florida, 710 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1983) (upholding Florida’s earlier 3% petition requirement)
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (States may provide different ballot routes for parties)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (state interest in requiring preliminary showing of support)
Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 957 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2020) (standing and redressability in ballot-access challenges)
Swanson v. Worley, 490 F.3d 894 (11th Cir. 2007) (injury analysis when ballots are denied)
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (lesser burdens trigger less exacting review)
Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009) (weight of state interests in election regulation)