539 F.Supp.3d 310
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- New York's 2020-2021 Budget (Part ZZZ) amended Election Law: a political organization qualifies as a "party" only if its candidate received the greater of 130,000 votes or 2% of votes in the most recent presidential or gubernatorial election; independent nominating petitions for statewide office must have the lesser of 45,000 signatures or 1% of votes in last gubernatorial election, with distribution requirements and a 6‑week circulation window.
- The Libertarian Party and Green Party failed to meet the new party-qualification threshold in 2020 and were decertified; they sued the New York Board of Elections seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate party status for 2022 and to enjoin enforcement of the petition and party-qualification provisions.
- The challenged changes originated in recommendations from the State Campaign Finance Review Commission, adopted by the Legislature to support a proposed public financing regime and to limit ballot crowding and frivolous candidacies.
- Plaintiffs argued the Party Qualification Requirement and the Petition Requirement (alone and combined) impose a "severe burden" on First and Fourteenth Amendment associational and ballot-access rights and are facially and as-applied unconstitutional.
- The court applied the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework (as developed in this Circuit), relied on the recent SAM Party decisions, and concluded plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or that the public interest favoured injunctive relief; the preliminary injunction motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Party-qualification threshold (130,000 or 2%) | Requirement imposes severe burden on minor parties; de-certification abridges associational/speech rights | Threshold is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory means to ensure a "modicum of support," reduce ballot clutter, and protect public financing | Not a severe burden; statute is a permissible regulation of ballot access; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed |
| Constitutionality of Petition signature threshold (≤45,000 or 1%) | Higher signature and limited 42-day window make ballot access practically impossible or unduly onerous | Signature floor and time limit are reasonable, consistent with other states/cases, and surmountable by diligent effort | Not a severe burden; requirement is constitutional in both facial and as-applied challenges |
| Combined effect of party and petition rules (as‑applied to Green & Libertarian) | Together the rules functionally exclude these parties from ballot access and impose irreparable First Amendment harm | Combined scheme still leaves independent nomination as a viable alternative; burden not exclusionary | Combined effect does not amount to virtual exclusion; alternative means remain available |
| Preliminary injunction factors (irreparable harm, public interest, balance of equities) | Continued loss of party status and practical petitioning burdens justify immediate relief | Plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success (so no irreparable First Amendment injury); public interest favors administrable elections | Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or public-interest/balance tipping in their favor; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson‑Burdick balancing; scrutiny varies with burden severity)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for ballot‑access restrictions)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (states may regulate parties; no constitutional right to ballot line)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (upholding substantial signature/vote thresholds for party status and ballot access)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (petition timeframes and signature rates considered not facially impossible)
- American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (upheld cut‑off periods and significant signature requirements)
- SAM Party of New York v. Kosinski, 987 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming denial of preliminary injunction against Part ZZZ)
- Libertarian Party of Conn. v. Lamont, 977 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2020) (standard for preliminary injunctions in election cases)
- Munro v. Social Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (States may require a modicum of support for ballot access)
- Prestia v. O'Connor, 178 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1999) (discusses constitutionality of percentage‑based petition requirements)