682 F.3d 72
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- The DC Board of Elections and Ethics published the total write-in votes but did not report how many votes each write-in candidate received.
- 1,138 write-in votes were counted out of 20,053 non-ballot- or write-in votes in the 2008 election; no per-candidate tally was produced because the total was insufficient to elect a write-in candidate.
- Libertarian Party and Bob Barr sued, asserting First Amendment speech/association rights and Fifth Amendment equal protection challenges.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Board, applying Burdick v. Takushi to conclude the restrictions were reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
- The Court of Appeals reviews de novo the question whether the reporting regime imposes a severe burden on constitutional rights.
- The court held that the District’s regime imposes only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions and upholds the Board’s practice of reporting total write-ins but not per-candidate counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the DC scheme impose a severe burden on rights? | Party argues burden is severe, infringing speech and association. | Board argues burden is reasonable and nondiscriminatory under Burdick. | Not severe; restrictions upheld. |
| What standard governs the analysis under Burdick? | Plaintiff seeks strict scrutiny due to burden on core voting rights. | District applies Burdick's framework of reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions with important interests. | Burden analyzed under Burdick; restrictions are reasonable. |
| Is the limitation on per-candidate vote reporting justified by the District's interests? | Without per-candidate counts, voters and parties lose associational and informational value and accountability. | Measuring costs against negligible impact on outcome, administrative efficiency justified. | Yes; reporting total write-ins with no per-candidate tally is justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (framework: severity of burden depends on the rights affected and state interests; reasonable restrictions may be upheld)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balanced approach to evaluating election regulations by character and magnitude of burdens)
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) (voters' rights and counting of votes; importance of accurate vote reporting)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (ballot access does not serve as a broad expressive forum; elections primarily for electing candidates)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (strict scrutiny required when a regulation disenfranchises a class of voters; administrative costs alone insufficient)