Lux v. Judd
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13671
4th Cir.2011Background
- Virginia requires 1000 petition signatures for independent U.S. House candidates, with each signature witnessed by a qualified voter residing in the district.
- Lux attempted to run in Virginia's 7th District though he did not live there; he witnessed 63 signatures and gathered ~1,063 signatures personally, while Cruse, Mikel, and Foret witnessed an additional ~151 signatures.
- The Board excluded signatures witnessed by Lux due to nonresidency, concluding Lux could not reach 1000 valid signatures and would not appear on the ballot.
- The district court dismissed the suit, relying on Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Davis to uphold the residency requirement as a reasonable regulation of elections.
- The parties appealed; the court later held that Davis's reasoning had been superseded by Meyer v. Grant and Buckley and remanded for independent analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of coplaintiffs to challenge residency rule | Cruse, Mikel, Foret have concrete injury via collaboration for Lux's ballot access. | They lack concrete, particularized injury and can still vote; no third-party standing. | Coplaintiffs lack standing. |
| Lux's claim signaling mootness | Lux intends to run again; repetition could affect him; injury capable of repetition. | Election cycle mootness given past election; no ongoing controversy. | Lux's claim fits the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception. |
| Use of Davis to sustain residency requirement | Davis correctly analyzed residency only in a broader context; Meyer and Buckley undermine it. | Davis remains valid precedent for residency to ensure local support. | Davis superseded; remand for independent district-interest analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Davis, 766 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1985) (upheld residency-type witness requirement for ballot access)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (Supreme Court 1988) (rejected that grassroots support justification for petition restrictions)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court 1999) (threshold signature requirements sufficient; struck down certain circulator restrictions)
- Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (Supreme Court 2007) (capable-of-repetition, evading-review mootness exception)
- Leake v. North Carolina Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures, 524 F.3d 427 (4th Cir. 2008) (applies mootness exception to election disputes)
- Simmons v. United Mortgage & Loan Investment LLC, 634 F.3d 754 (4th Cir. 2011) (mootness considerations in appellate review)
- In re Burke v. City of Charleston, 139 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 1998) (standing/third-party rights considerations in constitutional challenges)