Perry v. Judd
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4290
E.D. Va.2012Background
- Presidential candidates Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman challenge Virginia’s ballot-access rules in federal court.
- Virginia requires 10,000 signatures, including 400 from each congressional district, and restricts petition circulators to registered Virginia voters.
- Plaintiffs allege First and Fourteenth Amendment violations and Voter Rights Act claims based on residency and circulator restrictions.
- Board rules govern petition circulation form, circulation eligibility, and petition processing; signatures determine ballot access.
- Court grounds the decision on laches, but also analyzes standing and merits to provide a complete appellate-ready record.
- Election timeline shows circulation window and deadlines leading to the March 2012 Virginia Republican primary; suit filed late December 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars the injunction | Perry et al. were injured by residency/signature rules as soon as circulation began. | Plaintiffs delayed unreasonably, harming the Board’s scheduling and absentee-ballot preparation. | Laches bars preliminary relief. |
| Standing of plaintiffs | Plaintiffs suffer injury from inability to circulate via non-Virginians and to appear on ballot. | Standing defeated only if no injury shown; here injury exists. | Plaintiffs have Article III standing. |
| Residency requirement for petition circulators unconstitutional under First Amendment | Residency restriction burdens speech and association; buckles to strict scrutiny. | Residency serves compelling state interests; narrowly tailored. | Residency likely unconstitutional; plaintiffs will prevail. |
| 10,000-signature requirement facial validity | Signature threshold is unduly burdensome and unconstitutional. | Numeric requirement consistent with state interests and precedents; not unduly burdensome. | Plaintiffs not likely to prevail; requirement upheld. |
| Impact of relief on election process and public interest | Releasing the candidates onto the ballot serves the public interest in free political speech. | Enjoining state election administration at this stage disrupts orderly process. | Public interest favors orderly process, but laches controls; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 525 U.S. 182 (S. Ct. 1999) (First Amendment speech protections for petition circulators; residency scrutiny discussed)
- Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011) (Residency petition-circulator rule analyzed; guidance for strict scrutiny framework)
- Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (Residency requirements struck as unconstitutional burdens on speech)
- Yes on Term Limits v. Savage, 550 F.3d 1023, 550 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 2008) (Nonresident circulator restrictions struck as overbroad)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 403 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1971) (Ballot access and signature requirements upheld under substantial state interests)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (Signature thresholds assessed under standard scrutiny; substantial regulation of elections)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 415 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1974) (Early ballot access regulatory precedents for signature requirements)