49 F. Supp. 3d 658
D.S.D.2014Background
- Michael J. Myers qualified as a non-party independent candidate for Governor of South Dakota by filing a declaration and submitting a nominating petition; his original running mate Caitlin F. Collier later withdrew.
- Myers attempted to replace Collier with Lora Hubbel by submitting a notarized running-mate certification to the Secretary of State after the petition-filing deadline.
- Secretary of State Jason Gant refused to certify Hubbel, citing state law that permits party nominees (but not independents) to replace a withdrawn running mate up to the second Tuesday in August.
- Myers sued, alleging the statutory scheme denying replacement for non-party running mates violates his and supporters’ First and Fourteenth Amendment associational rights.
- The district court heard cross-motions and granted Myers’ motion for a preliminary injunction ordering Hubbel placed on the general-election ballot; Gant’s motion to dismiss was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether South Dakota’s refusal to allow independents to replace a withdrawn running mate violates associational and ballot-access rights | Myers: scheme burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by discriminating against non-party candidates and supporters, preventing him from naming a replacement | Gant: State may regulate ballots; parties have procedures to replace nominees and independents received support for the original team whose expectations would be frustrated by substitution | Court: State scheme imposes a severe burden on associational rights and likely violates the Constitution; plaintiff likely to succeed |
| Appropriate standard of review for ballot-access restriction | Myers: burden is severe, so strict scrutiny applies | Gant: state interest in election administration justifies the restriction under a more deferential standard | Court: burden is severe and discriminatory against independents, so strict scrutiny applies; state failed to show a compelling interest |
| Irreparable harm from denial of injunction | Myers: loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm | Gant: administrative concerns outweigh harm | Court: constitutional injury is irreparable; favors injunction |
| Balance of harms and public interest | Myers: harm to candidate and voters outweighs administrative concerns; public interest favors correct ballot representation | Gant: placing substitute could cause voter confusion and undermine ballot integrity | Court: balance favors Myers; public interest supports corrective action |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing test for ballot-access challenges)
- Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) (applies strict scrutiny where restrictions impose severe burdens on new parties)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (announces flexible standard; scrutiny depends on magnitude of burden)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (recognizes States may reasonably regulate parties and ballots)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (validates State interest in preliminary showing of support to avoid confusion and fraud)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)
- Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (preliminary-injunction standard requires movant likely to prevail on the merits)
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir.) (sets the Dataphase factors for preliminary injunction analysis)
- Riemers v. Jaeger, 827 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 2013) (state-court example where lack of replacement mechanism kept a gubernatorial ticket off the ballot)