Libertarian Party of Kentucky v. Alison Grimes
835 F.3d 570
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kentucky classifies political associations as (1) "political parties" (≥20% of presidential vote), (2) "political organizations" (≥2% of presidential vote), or (3) "political groups" (else). Political parties/organizations get blanket ballot access; groups must petition each candidate.
- Petition signature thresholds: 5,000 for statewide office, 400 for U.S. House, 100 for many state and county offices, smaller numbers for local offices. Filing window runs ~9 months before the general election.
- Plaintiffs: Libertarian Party of Kentucky, Libertarian National Committee, Constitution Party of Kentucky, and an individual former Libertarian candidate; they challenged the scheme facially and as-applied under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Plaintiffs argued the 2% presidential-vote threshold for blanket access is effectively impossible for many minor parties and that the requirement to gather separate petitions for each candidate imposes prohibitive costs and burdens on association and equal-protection rights.
- The district court upheld Kentucky’s three-tier scheme; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework and concluding the burdens were not "severe" and were justified by important state interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Kentucky’s three-tier ballot-access scheme under the First and Fourteenth Amendments | 2% presidential-vote requirement for blanket access and per-candidate petitioning impose severe, unequal burdens on minor parties and political association rights | Scheme reasonably limits ballot access to groups with demonstrable support and provides an alternative (petitioning) that is not exclusionary | Not severe; falls between minimal and severe; upheld under Anderson–Burdick balancing |
| Whether the petitioning requirements (including separate petitions per candidate) are unconstitutionally burdensome as applied to political associations | Requiring separate petitions and large aggregate signature-gathering costs effectively excludes minor parties from fielding slates and burdens associational activity | Petitioning thresholds are modest relative to registered-voter base, filing window is long, and petitioning is a constitutionally acceptable alternative to blanket access | Petitioning burdens are not exclusionary or severe; upheld |
| Whether Kentucky’s use of presidential-election results (rather than midterm/gubernatorial) to measure 2% support is arbitrary | Presidential-only measure disadvantages parties focused on state/local politics; less restrictive alternatives exist | State chooses a sensible, administrable metric to identify parties with broad support and to prevent ballot overcrowding/confusion | State interest in manageable ballots and demonstrable support justifies the choice |
| Whether the Attorney General was a proper defendant | Plaintiffs included AG asserting general enforcement authority | AG argued lack of specific enforcement role made him improper defendant | AG dismissal affirmed; general enforcement powers did not render him a proper defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (Sup. Ct.) (Anderson–Burdick framework origin and balancing approach)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct.) (clarified balancing for ballot-access burdens)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (Sup. Ct.) (states may require a modest showing of support to gain ballot access)
- Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (Sup. Ct.) (struck down ballot-access fees that effectively excluded indigent candidates)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (Sup. Ct.) (invalidated ballot rules that made it virtually impossible for new parties to access the ballot)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (Sup. Ct.) (state interest in orderly elections and avoiding confusion justified reasonable restrictions)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (Sup. Ct.) (states’ interests in stability and integrity of elections justify some restrictions)
- Anderson v. Mills, 664 F.2d 600 (6th Cir.) (upheld Kentucky’s 5,000-signature requirement for statewide candidates)
- Libertarian Party v. Davis, 601 F. Supp. 522 (E.D. Ky.) (upheld 5,000-signature requirement in First/Fourteenth Amendment challenge)