42 F.4th 768
7th Cir.2022Background
- Joseph Hero, a Republican for over 40 years, opposed his town council’s use of eminent domain in 2015 and supported independent challengers to two incumbent Republican councilmembers.
- Afterward, the Indiana Republican Party declared Hero “not a Republican in good standing” for ten years, barring him from seeking office as a Republican.
- Hero met Indiana statutory criteria to appear on the 2019 Republican primary ballot, but the Lake County Republican chairman objected; the Lake County Election Board removed Hero from the Republican primary ballot.
- Hero sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a declaratory judgment for the 2019 removal and an injunction to prevent similar future exclusions.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment but on different grounds — addressing standing/mootness and the merits and concluding the Election Board’s action did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for declaratory relief | Removal from the 2019 ballot was a concrete, actual injury | No continuing injury after the election; thus no standing | Court: Hero has Article III standing for declaratory relief (past ballot-denial is an actual injury) |
| Mootness / "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception | Election disputes are short-lived and likely to recur; Hero intends to run again | The election has passed so the claim is moot | Court: Exception applies — election cases typically evade review and Hero has reasonable expectation to run again |
| Federal‑question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) | Complaint alleges deprivation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under § 1983 | Election Board initially contested federal jurisdiction on appeal | Court: Well‑pleaded § 1983 claim raises a federal question; federal jurisdiction proper |
| Merits — ballot access / associational rights (Anderson–Burdick) | Striking Hero from the party primary unconstitutionally burdened his associational and ballot‑access rights | State interest in party autonomy and party’s right to define membership justifies exclusion | Court: Burden was slight (alternative routes to ballot exist); protecting a party’s right to exclude members is a sufficiently weighty interest — no constitutional violation |
| Prospective injunctive relief | Hero seeks an injunction to prevent future exclusion from party primary ballots | Injunctive relief requires imminent, not speculative, threat | Court: Injunctive relief is more problematic — requires immediate danger; Hero did not establish the necessary immediate threat (and decision resolves merits against him) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing test for election‑law restrictions)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (clarifies flexible balancing approach for election regulation)
- FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (applies "capable of repetition, yet evading review" to election contexts)
- Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (reaffirms WRTL principles)
- Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (associational freedom to exclude unwanted members)
- California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (party autonomy in nomination processes)
- Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) (permissibility of party loyalty requirements)
- Acevedo v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd., 925 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2019) (ballot‑access denial as concrete injury)
- Gill v. Scholz, 962 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2020) (applying capable‑of‑repetition exception to election disputes)
- Tobin for Governor v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 268 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2001) (distinguishable precedent on mootness due to procedural missteps)
- Duke v. Cleland, 954 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1992) (upholding party exclusion from primary ballot)
- Duke v. Massey, 87 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 1996) (same)