Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Alcorn
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11094
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Sarvis (Libertarian Party of Virginia member) challenged Virginia Code § 24.2-613, which prescribes a three-tiered ballot order: (1) “parties/political parties” (10% statewide vote threshold), (2) “recognized political parties” (organizational criteria), and (3) independents; order within tiers is by lot for tiers 1–2 and alphabetical for tier 3.
- Only Democrats and Republicans qualified for first-tier status; the Libertarian Party is a recognized party (second tier).
- Plaintiffs alleged the scheme burdens First Amendment expressive and associational rights, the right to vote/stand for office, and Equal Protection via the so-called “windfall vote” positional-bias theory.
- Case filed shortly before 2014 elections; parties agreed the controversy was capable of repetition yet evading review, so the suit proceeded beyond the 2014 election cycle; plaintiffs sought prospective relief (randomized ballot order).
- District court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) applying the Anderson/Burdick balancing framework, holding burdens were minimal and Virginia’s interests (reducing voter confusion, party-order symmetry, and correlating placement with demonstrated support) were important; Sarvis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three-tiered ballot ordering law imposes a constitutionally significant burden on First Amendment rights (expression/association/right to stand) via positional bias (“windfall vote”) | Sarvis: Positional bias likely reduces votes for minor-party candidates; scheme advantages major parties and burdens expressive/associational rights and right to stand/vote for chosen candidates | Virginia: Law is facially neutral, does not deny ballot access or votes, imposes only modest burdens; tiering correlates with demonstrated support and serves valid administrative interests | Court: Burden is minimal; Anderson/Burdick balancing favors state; law survives rational, important-regulatory-interest review; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the law violates Equal Protection by treating parties unequally | Sarvis: Tiered scheme discriminates against minor parties by relegating them to inferior positions, producing unequal electoral effect | Virginia: Classification is neutral, based on objective criteria (vote share, organization); not invidious | Court: Classification is neutral and nondiscriminatory; no equal-protection violation established |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was premature and discovery required to probe empirical magnitude of positional bias | Sarvis: Need factual record and expert evidence to prove magnitude of windfall effect and state interests’ weakness | Virginia: No need for elaborate empirical proof at pleading stage; state need only articulate legitimate interests; complaint fails to plausibly plead a constitutional injury | Court: Dismissal appropriate; complaint lacked factual content to plausibly show a constitutionally significant burden, and elaborate empirical proof not required to articulate state interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for burdens on voting/associational rights)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing framework for election-regulation challenges)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (states may enact reasonable rules that favor a two-party system to promote stability)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (upholding ballot-access restrictions that do not substantially burden political opportunity)
- Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005) (states have broad power over the manner of holding elections)
- S.C. Green Party v. S.C. State Election Comm’n, 612 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 2010) (election regulations implicate voting and associational rights)