Parker v. Winter, 645 F. App'x 632

Plaintiff James T. Parker challenged New Mexico election law that requires a prospective independent-party candidate to collect signatures equal to 3% of the votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, while a minor-party candidate need only collect 1%.
Parker sought declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; the district court denied those motions and later dismissed his complaint.
Parker appealed the dismissal, arguing the differential signature requirements violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the New Mexico Constitution.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed constitutional facts and law de novo and considered whether it had Article III jurisdiction given the 2014 election had passed.
The court found the case fell within the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness because election-related challenges commonly evade full review and the plaintiff was reasonably likely to be subjected to the rule again.
On the merits, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, adopting substantially the district court’s reasoning that Parker’s claims lacked merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness / jurisdiction	Case not moot because Parker intends to run again; relief remains relevant	2014 election passed so claims are moot	Court: exception "capable of repetition, yet evading review" applies; jurisdiction proper
Standing to raise as-applied challenge	Parker can challenge statute as applied to him seeking independent nomination	Defendant contends challenge is moot or not properly before court	Court assumed as-applied challenge reviewable and proceeded to merits under exception
Equal protection / First & Fourteenth Amendment challenge to disparate signature requirements	3% for independents vs. 1% for minor parties burdens Parker's associational and ballot access rights	State defends differential as lawful and justified by regulatory interests	Court affirmed dismissal — Parker’s constitutional challenge failed for reasons explained by district court
Claim under New Mexico Constitution	State law violates state constitutional rights	State defends statute as valid under state law	Court affirmed dismissal of state-law claim along with federal claims

Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (Article III case-or-controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction)
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) (whether a present determination will have real-world effect informs mootness)
Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975) (elements of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception)
Fleming v. Gutierrez, 785 F.3d 442 (10th Cir. 2015) (procedural posture can determine applicability of mootness exceptions)
Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2005) (election-law challenges typically fit the repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (applicability of repetition-yet-evading-review in election cases, including as-applied challenges)
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) (recognizing likelihood of recurrence relevant in election-law challenges)