Libertarian Party of Arkansas v. Mark Martin
876 F.3d 948
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- The Libertarian Party of Arkansas sought party recognition in June 2015 and held a nominating convention on October 24, 2015, to select candidates for the 2016 general election; some candidates were later nominated at a second convention (Feb 27, 2016) but their filings were rejected as late.
- Arkansas law then required newly recognized parties to nominate by convention before the major parties’ preferential primary and to file certificates/pledges during the party filing period.
- The Libertarian Party sued the Arkansas Secretary of State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the early convention/filing deadlines burdened First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by disadvantaging new parties compared to Democrats and Republicans.
- The district court applied the Timmons balancing test, found the statutory scheme unconstitutional, granted declaratory relief but denied injunctive relief for the specific late-filed candidates, and awarded costs and attorney’s fees to the Libertarian Party.
- While the appeal was pending, the Arkansas Legislature amended the statute to move the convention and certificate-of-nomination deadline to no later than 12:00 noon on the day of the preferential primary election.
- The Eighth Circuit concluded the declaratory-judgment claim was mooted by the statutory amendment, vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss as moot, but affirmed the fee award because the Libertarian Party had been a prevailing party prior to the legislative change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after legislative amendment | Amendment still burdens new parties because logistical realities force conventions earlier; reenactment risk | Amendment removes the challenged deadlines, rendering the claim moot | Declaratory-judgment claim moot; dismissal ordered (voluntary cessation exception inapplicable) |
| Constitutionality of early-convention/filing deadlines (Timmons balancing) | Early deadlines impose a significant burden on associational and ballot-access rights | State interests justify scheduling rules and uniform filing periods | District court found statute unconstitutional under Timmons, but appellate court declined to decide merits after mootness determination |
| Standing (as raised on appeal) | Libertarian Party asserted concrete injury from deadlines | Secretary argued lack of standing to challenge statute | Court did not reach standing on appeal (mootness resolved the case) |
| Attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 | Party sought fees as prevailing party for obtaining declaratory relief | Secretary argued plaintiff did not prevail on all claims and thus was not prevailing party | Affirmed fee award: plaintiff was a prevailing party because it obtained material alteration (declaratory relief) before mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (balancing test for ballot-access/association restrictions)
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (standing and case-or-controversy principles)
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (jurisdictional requirement persists through appeal)
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (mootness principles when circumstances change)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (definition of prevailing party for fee awards)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (prevailing party standard; nominal relief suffices)
- Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon, 587 F.3d 445 (1st Cir.) (when mootness occurs, prevailing-party inquiry looks to relief actually obtained)
- Green Party of Arkansas v. Martin, 649 F.3d 675 (8th Cir.) (applying Timmons in ballot-access context)
- Teague v. Cooper, 720 F.3d 973 (8th Cir.) (voluntary cessation and legislative repeal/reenactment considerations)
- Bishop v. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n, 686 F.2d 1278 (8th Cir.) (prevailing party status based on declaratory relief)
- United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (vacatur and dismissal when case becomes moot due to intervening events)