Mark Moore v. Mark Martin
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7331
8th Cir.2017Background
- Arkansas law (pre-2013 change) required independent candidates to file petitions by May 1; 2013 amendments moved the party filing period so independent petitions were due March 1, aligning independent filings with party filings. Petition signature thresholds for statewide independent candidates are the lesser of 3% of qualified electors or 10,000 signatures.
- Secretary of State must process petitions for nonpartisan offices (e.g., judges) and verify their sufficiency within statutory time limits; initiative petitions have their own filing/verification schedule and strict constitutional timing that can create intense processing demands.
- Moore (an Arkansas voter who intended to run as an independent for Lieutenant Governor) sued Secretary Mark Martin seeking to enjoin enforcement of the earlier March filing deadline as violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
- The district court found the March 1 deadline imposed a substantial burden, that Arkansas has a compelling interest in timely ballot certification, and that the March deadline was narrowly tailored based on an affidavit from the Director of Elections describing processing burdens (especially from initiative petitions), and granted summary judgment to the Secretary.
- The Eighth Circuit majority agreed there is a substantial burden and a compelling state interest, but reversed in part because genuine factual disputes exist about whether the March 1 deadline is narrowly tailored — specifically, the record is unclear about timing, processing overlaps, actual processing times, and feasibility of temporary staffing.
- The case was remanded for further factual development; one judge dissented, arguing the Secretary failed to meet his burden on summary judgment and that the March deadline is not justified or narrowly drawn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 1 filing deadline burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights | Moore: March 1 imposes a substantial burden on independent candidates and voters | Martin: Deadline aligns with party filing period and serves administrative needs; burden is justified | Court: March 1 does impose a burden of some substance (agreed) |
| Whether Arkansas has a compelling interest in early certification | Moore: Administrative convenience and costs do not justify heavy burden | Martin: Compelling interest in timely certification, processing large initiative and nonpartisan petitions, and UOCAVA/MOVE compliance | Court: State has a compelling interest in timely certification (agreed) |
| Whether the March 1 deadline is narrowly tailored to that interest | Moore: Earlier May 1 was sufficient; little evidence of actual conflict; burden not narrowly tailored | Martin: Earlier deadlines moved to accommodate heavy initiative-petition processing and related litigation; March 1 frees necessary time | Court: Genuine factual disputes exist about whether March 1 is narrowly tailored (record insufficient); summary judgment for Martin improper on this point |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Moore: Secretary failed to prove necessary factual conflict; Moore entitled to judgment | Martin: Director of Elections affidavit and administrative evidence support summary judgment | Court: Summary judgment for Martin reversed due to material factual gaps; Moore’s summary judgment denied because factual disputes remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for balancing burdens on ballot access against state interests)
- Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (Sup. Ct.) (state bears burden to show law is narrowly tailored to compelling interest)
- McLain v. Meier, 851 F.2d 1045 (8th Cir.) (compelling-interest/narrow-tailoring standard for ballot access and concern over very early filing deadlines)
- Libertarian Party of North Dakota v. Jaeger, 659 F.3d 687 (8th Cir.) (applies ‘‘compelling state interest’’ test to ballot-access restrictions)
- Lendall v. Bryant, 387 F. Supp. 397 (E.D. Ark.) (earlier E.D. Ark. decision invalidating restrictive filing conditions for independent candidates)
- Lendall v. Jernigan, 433 U.S. 901 (Sup. Ct.) (per curiam) (affirmance memorandum in Lendall line addressing Arkansas filing requirements)
- Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (Sup. Ct.) (administrative costs do not alone justify infringement on associational/ballot-access rights)