837 F. Supp. 2d 404
D.N.J.2011Background
- Carl Lewis filed federal and state claims challenging New Jersey's four-year durational residency requirement for State Senate candidacy.
- Defendants, led by Secretary Guadagno and Attorney General Dow, ordered Lewis's name removed from the June 2011 Democratic primary ballot after residency findings were reversed by the Secretary.
- The New Jersey Appellate Division and New Jersey Supreme Court denied relief on Lewis’s residency challenge at state court level.
- The Third Circuit preliminarily enjoined Lewis’s name on the ballot and remanded for consideration of his as-applied equal protection claim.
- On remand, both sides moved for summary judgment; Lewis contends the residency requirement as applied to him violates equal protection due to his ties to New Jersey.
- The court concludes that the durational residency requirement, even as applied to Lewis, does not violate equal protection and grants summary judgment for Defendants and Intervenors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of review applies? | Lewis argues strict scrutiny applies due to travel rights and voting fractions. | Defendants contend rational basis review suffices because candidacy is not a fundamental right. | Rational basis review applies to as-applied challenge. |
| Does the durational residency requirement offend equal protection when applied to Lewis? | Lewis asserts his ties to New Jersey and current residency render the requirement unconstitutional as applied to him. | Defendants maintain the requirement serves legitimate state interests and is neutrally applied. | No; as applied, it does not violate equal protection. |
| Does the history and purpose of the residency requirement under state law offset Lewis's claims? | Lewis argues his status as a well-known, involved figure undermines the rationale for the requirement. | State interests in familiarity and vetting candidates justify the requirement and apply neutrally. | The requirement stands; no heightened scrutiny appear warranted. |
| Should a judge evaluate the applicant’s personal circumstances or leave it to state processes? | As-applied review should consider Lewis’s unique ties and public service to excuse non-residency period. | Courts should not substitute ad hoc standards for state constitution; respect state authorization. | Court declines to override state constitutional provision. |
| Is the challenge barred by state-res judicata or comity concerns? | Lewis contends issues should be assessed in federal courts; state decisions should not preclude review. | State court decisions are binding under comity principles; federal review limited. | Federal court adheres to state rulings; but analyzes as-applied claim on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1972) (filing fees on ballot access trigger heightened scrutiny only when barriers affect voters)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (U.S. 1972) (durational residency infringements depend on rights involved; strict scrutiny when fundamental rights implicated)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1968) (protects association and voting rights against discriminatory party structure barriers)
- Sununu v. Stark, 383 F. Supp. 1287 (D.N.H. 1974) (durational residency challenges upheld against broader residency requirements)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1982) (plurality: candidacy barriers need only a rational basis; not necessarily fundamental rights)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1986) (state need not provide elaborate empirical justification for ballot access restrictions)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1997) (rational basis with respect to ballot access restrictions; no need for elaborate proof of weighty justification)
- Doe v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 513 F.3d 95 (3d Cir. 2008) (establishes criteria for applying rational basis review in equal protection challenges)