Libertarian Party of Michigan v. Ruth Johnson
714 F.3d 929
6th Cir.2013Background
- Libertarian Party of Michigan challenges Michigan's sore loser statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.695, barring a candidate who lost a party primary from running under another party in the following election.
- Gary Johnson sought the Republican nomination in 2012, withdrew late, and his name remained on the Republican primary ballot due to untimely withdrawal.
- Johnson later was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president in May 2012, and Michigan deemed him ineligible to appear on the Libertarian ticket.
- The Secretary of State informed Johnson he could not appear on the Libertarian ballot under the sore loser statute, leading to federal litigation.
- The district court dismissed the case, holding the statute applicable to presidential candidates and constitutionally reasonable as a regulation of elections.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing mootness avoidance and the potential for repetition, and declined to issue a merits ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the sore loser statute apply to presidential candidates? | Johnson/Libertarian contend it does not apply to presidents. | Michigan asserts the statute applies to presidential candidates who lose a primary. | Affirmed that statute applies to presidential candidates. |
| Does the statute burden First Amendment associational rights? | Johnson/Libertarian argue it substantially burdens associational rights. | State asserts it is a reasonable regulatory interest with limited burden. | Statute is a reasonable nondiscriminatory restriction. |
| Is the case properly reviewable despite the election having concluded? | Claims are capable of repetition and will evade review. | Case not moot; regulation remains in force. | Meets the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1997) (standard for sore loser/election challenges referenced)
- Lavin v. Husted, 689 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2012) (capable-of-repetition analysis in election cases)
- Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (capable of repetition, evading review framework cited)
- Carey v. Wolnitzek, 614 F.3d 189 (6th Cir. 2010) (election-law challenges often advance despite weak cognizable interests)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (recurring election disputes and relaxed mootness standard)
- Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2005) (election controversy may recur with future candidates)