168 F. Supp. 3d 865
E.D. Va.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (four local Republican nominees and the Powhatan County Republican Committee) challenged Va. Code § 24.2-613, which requires party labels on ballots only for federal, statewide, and General Assembly offices, not for local offices.
- In the 2015 Powhatan County Board of Supervisors election the individual plaintiffs were the Republican nominees but the general election ballot omitted party identifiers for their local races in accordance with § 24.2-613.
- Plaintiffs sued the Virginia State Board of Elections and its members seeking a declaratory judgment that § 24.2-613 violates the First Amendment freedom of association and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
- The district court considered cross-motions for summary judgment after denying a preliminary injunction and found the case not moot under the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception.
- The court evaluated whether § 24.2-613 (1) impinges a fundamental associational right to have party labels on general election ballots and (2) discriminates in violation of equal protection by treating local candidates differently from federal/state candidates.
- The court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendants' motion, concluding the statute neither violates associational rights nor equal protection (under rational basis), and that it would survive Anderson-Burdick balancing if applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 24.2-613 violates the First Amendment freedom of association by preventing local candidates from having party labels on general election ballots | Plaintiffs: withholding party labels prevents candidates/parties from associating on the ballot and deprives voters of partisan cues | Defendants: no constitutional right to use the ballot as a forum for party expression; statute does not deny ballot access or ability to associate off-ballot | Court: No violation — Supreme Court precedent rejects a First Amendment right to label nominees on the ballot; statute does not restrict access or associational membership |
| Whether § 24.2-613 violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating local candidates differently from federal/state candidates | Plaintiffs: disparate treatment of local candidates is unconstitutional discrimination that harms party association and electoral prospects | Defendants: classification (local v. federal/state/General Assembly) is rationally related to legitimate state interests (reduce local partisanship, promote impartial governance, broaden eligibility re: Hatch Act) | Court: No violation — rational basis applies and statute is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests |
| If Anderson‑Burdick balancing applies, whether the Commonwealth's interests justify any burden on associational/equal protection rights | Plaintiffs: any burden on associational/equal protection rights is not justified; voters need party cues | Defendants: burdens are minimal; strong state interests in depoliticizing local government, impartiality, and enabling certain federal employees to run justify the rule | Court: Even under Anderson‑Burdick, the minimal burden on plaintiffs is outweighed by the Commonwealth's legitimate and weighty interests; plaintiffs do not prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (recognized freedom of association as constitutionally protected)
- Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) (right to associate with political party is integral to First Amendment freedom of association)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for balancing burdens on voting/association against state interests)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (clarified balancing approach for election regulation burdens)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (no First Amendment right to have nominees designated on ballot; rejected presumption that party labels mislead voters)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (ballots are primarily for electing candidates, not forums for party expression)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (ballot access cases implicate associational and voting rights; denial of access can be fatal to party's ability to win votes)
- Libertarian Party of N.H. v. Gardner, 638 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2011) (rejected claim that parties have a free speech right to use the ballot to advertise nominees)