837 F. Supp. 2d 393
D.N.J.2011Background
- Plaintiff Carl Lewis sought a preliminary injunction to prevent county clerks from printing/mailing ballots with his name removed from the June 7, 2011 Democratic primary for New Jersey State Senate, 8th District.
- Defendants administer election processes in New Jersey; the challenged provision is Article IV, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the New Jersey Constitution, requiring four years of residency in New Jersey prior to election.
- An ALJ initially found Lewis met the residency requirement; Secretary of State reversed and removed Lewis from the ballot on April 26, 2011.
- Lewis filed suit alleging the residency provision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and sought TRO/PI; the court denied the TRO on April 28, 2011.
- The court, in this supplemental opinion, analyzes abstention under Pullman and Younger and the merits under Sununu control and strict scrutiny, ultimately concluding the provision is constitutional under controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sununu controls the outcome. | Lewis argues Sununu is binding precedential authority. | Defendants contend Sununu controls and supports constitutionality. | Sununu controls the result; four-year residency constitutional. |
| Whether abstention under Pullman/Younger applies. | Lewis argues abstention is appropriate to avoid deciding a state-law issue. | Defendants contend abstention is appropriate, but Younger did not apply given the narrow federal question. | Abstention declined; court exercised jurisdiction to decide the facial constitutional issue. |
| Whether the four-year residency requirement violates Equal Protection. | Lewis contends the provision is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. | Defendants contend the provision serves a compelling state interest and is rationally related to state interests. | Court applied strict scrutiny and upheld the four-year residency requirement as advancing compelling state interests. |
| Whether interstate residency requirement justifies stricter scrutiny. | Lewis argues interstate nature of residency creates constitutional doubt. | State asserts compelling, state-wide governance rationale; intrastate comparisons are distinguishable. | Interstate residency requirement deemed constitutional, with distinguishing considerations for interstate vs intrastate contexts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1981) (precedential value of summary affirmances is limited to precise issues decided)
- Sununu v. Stark, 383 F.Supp. 1287 (D.N.H. 1974) (binding precedent; summary affirmance discussed as controlling authority in similar contexts)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1982) (durational residency review; plurality opinion cited in strict scrutiny discussion)
- D'Iorio v. Delaware County, 592 F.2d 681 (3d Cir. 1978) (Pullman abstention framework cited and applied)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1971) (federal abstention when state proceedings are ongoing and important)
- Sununu v. Stark (Three-judge panel discussed; Sununu cited for controlling principle), 383 F.Supp. 1287 (D.N.H. 1974) (control of facial equal protection challenge to residency requirement)
- Wellford v. Battaglia, 485 F.2d 1151 (3d Cir. 1973) (per curiam; discussed as non-binding in this context; intrastate/local issue)