843 F.3d 20
1st Cir.2016Background
- New Hampshire amended its ballot-access law (HB 1542, 2014) to delay the start for gathering nomination petition signatures to January 1 of the election year, shortening the practical window from ~21 months to ~7 months.
- Under New Hampshire law, a political party gains automatic statewide ballot status if a candidate received ≥4% in the prior Governor or U.S. Senate race; otherwise party must submit nomination papers with signatures equal to 3% of votes cast in the prior general election.
- Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) challenged the January 1 start / shortened window as a facial violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; the district court granted summary judgment for the State and LPNH appealed.
- The undisputed record showed LPNH previously qualified via petitions, that signature gathering is largely done by paid petitioners, and LPNH spent ≈$40,000 to collect ~19,000 signatures in 2012; LPNH estimated ~$50,000 would be required under the shortened regime.
- The First Circuit found the case not moot (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review) and proceeded to the merits on de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial challenge validity of HB 1542 (start date + shortened window) | January 1 start and 7-month window facially burden LPNH’s associational and voting rights; facial standard met | Burden is reasonable and lesser than regimes previously upheld; statute has legitimate sweep | Court rejected facial challenge; regime constitutional |
| Burden level and comparability to Jenness | The January 1 start/limited months significantly increases practical burden (less time, higher paid-gatherer costs, weather, single-signature-per-cycle rule) | Burden is modest: 3% in 7 months is materially less than Georgia’s 5% in 6 months (Jenness); money/volunteers, not time, drive success | Court held cumulative burden is less than that sustained in Jenness and therefore permissible |
| Government interest and post-hoc justifications | State’s reliance on ballot-clutter/modicum-of-support interests is post hoc and should be discounted | Even if belated, modest burdens permit courts to accept litigation-stage justifications; legislature need not re-state full rationale for incremental amendments | Court credited state interests (avoiding ballot clutter / ensuring modicum of support); post-hoc justification acceptable given minimal burden |
| Mootness / Justiciability | LPNH had suspended petitioning pending suit; 2016 election passed so challenge might be moot | State argued lack of live controversy for 2016 cycle | Court found exception (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review) and retained jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (invalidated Ohio’s onerous multi-part regime that effectively monopolized ballot access)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (upheld Georgia’s 5% signature requirement over six months as a permissible modicum-of-support rule)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (remanded where signature pool restrictions altered burden analysis)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for early filing deadlines that burden associational rights)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (Salerno formulation for facial challenges: no set of circumstances standard)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial-challenge caution; uphold statutes with plainly legitimate sweep)
- Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (invalidated inconsistent/more burdensome lower-level signature requirements)
- Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) (struck requirements with unconstitutional breadth across jurisdictions)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (plurality applying balancing to minimal burdens; declined to decide partisan-motivation claim)
- Libertarian Party of Me. v. Diamond, 992 F.2d 365 (1st Cir. 1993) (recognizing state interest in avoiding overloaded ballots and frivolous candidacies)
