960 F.3d 1339
11th Cir.2020Background:
- Georgia law distinguishes “political parties” (major parties) from “political bodies” (third parties); major‑party nominees get ballot access via primary, political bodies must meet a 5% nominating‑petition requirement for non‑statewide offices.
- In 1986 Georgia lowered the threshold for statewide third‑party access to 1% (or 1% vote in prior election) but left the 5% petition rule for congressional and other non‑statewide offices intact.
- The Libertarian Party of Georgia claims that qualifying a full congressional slate would require 321,713 valid signatures and introduced evidence of practical burdens of petitioning (cost, signature validation errors, access to voters, confidentiality concerns).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Georgia Secretary of State, declining to apply the Supreme Court’s Anderson v. Celebrezze balancing test and relying on Jenness v. Fortson and circuit precedent.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court erred by not applying Anderson and instructing the district court to apply Anderson in the first instance and to consider the Party’s Equal Protection claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Anderson v. Celebrezze balancing test must be applied to Georgia’s 5% ballot‑access rule for congressional candidates | Anderson’s multi‑step balancing must govern and the record shows burdens warrant analysis | Jenness and subsequent Eleventh Circuit decisions foreclose re‑analysis and permit summary judgment for the State | Court: District court erred; Anderson applies; vacated and remanded for district court to apply Anderson in the first instance |
| Whether Georgia’s differing treatment of statewide vs. congressional third‑party candidates violates Equal Protection | Treating statewide candidates as automatically qualified (based on past 1% result) while requiring 5% petitions for congressional candidates is an unjustified classification | Jenness forecloses Equal Protection challenge; no new analysis required | Court: Jenness does not control this distinct Equal Protection claim; remand for district court to consider the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (articulates multi‑step balancing test for election law burdens on associational and voting rights)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (upheld Georgia’s 5% petition rule prior to Anderson)
- Bergland v. Harris, 767 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1985) (vacated/remanded Georgia challenges and required Anderson analysis despite Jenness)
- McCrary v. Poythress, 638 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1981) (upheld Georgia ballot‑access scheme pre‑Anderson)
- Cartwright v. Barnes, 304 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2002) (rejected a Qualifications Clause challenge and relied on Jenness on similar facts)
- Coffield v. Handel, 599 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirmed dismissal where plaintiffs failed to distinguish Jenness)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (explains contextual, fact‑sensitive nature of election‑law challenges)
- Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (Equal Protection: state must justify classifications that burden ballot access)