Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Charles Judd
718 F.3d 308
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- LPVA sought to place its presidential candidate on Virginia's ballot by collecting 10,000 valid signatures across 11 congressional districts (minimum 400 per district).
- Virginia requires witness residency by a Commonwealth resident not a minor or felon to attest signatures on nominating petitions.
- Plaintiffs include the LPVA and Pennsylvania petition circulator Darryl Bonner.
- District court held the witness residency requirement unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement.
- Board of Elections appealed, arguing plaintiffs lack standing and the statute is constitutional.
- Court ultimately affirmed the district court, applying strict scrutiny to the residency restriction and finding it unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of LPVA and Bonner to sue | LPVA and Bonner have injury in fact from restricted petitioning | LPVA and Bonner lack concrete injury and causation | Yes; standing established for both plaintiffs |
| Whether the residency requirement burdens First Amendment rights | Restriction limits speech and association in petitioning | State interest in preventing fraud justifies the rule | Yes; burden is sufficiently severe to warrant strict scrutiny |
| Whether the rule is narrowly tailored or alternatives exist | Nonresident witnesses could sign agreements to submit to subpoenas | Residency requirement is more effective and tailored | Unconstitutional; alternatives not adequately proven to be ineffective |
| Application of strict scrutiny to petition restrictions | Residency rule fails strict scrutiny | Rule serves compelling interest in integrity of elections | Unconstitutional under strict scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1988) (core political speech in petition circulation protected)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1999) (petition mechanisms may be restricted only if narrowly tailored)
- Nader v. Blackwell, 545 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2008) (nonresidents and initiative petitions; strict scrutiny context)
- Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (Arizona residency/ petition restrictions invalid under strict scrutiny)
- Savage v. Jaeger, 550 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 2008) (strict scrutiny applied to residency/petition restrictions)
- Brewer v. Jaeger, 531 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir. 2008) (state interest in election integrity; narrowly tailored inquiry)