Robert Marcellus v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2928

Powhatan County Republican Committee nominated four candidates for local Board of Supervisors; Virginia ballots showed no party identifiers for local offices in the 2015 election.
Virginia Code § 24.2-613(B) permits party identifiers only for federal, statewide, and General Assembly offices; party identifiers are prohibited for all local offices.
Plaintiffs sued the Virginia State Board of Elections alleging (1) violation of First Amendment associational rights and (2) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation based on disparate treatment.
District court granted summary judgment to the State; plaintiffs appealed. The Fourth Circuit heard cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Fourth Circuit applied Anderson/Burdick balancing to the associational claim and rational-basis review to the equal-protection claim.
Court affirmed: held any burden on association was minimal and justified by legitimate state interests (reduce local partisanship, promote impartial local governance, modestly broaden eligibility under the Hatch Act); the statute is rationally related to legitimate ends for equal protection purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 24.2-613(B) burdens First Amendment associational rights by denying party identifiers to local candidates while allowing them for federal/state/General Assembly candidates	Denial is discriminatory when the State grants ballot-identification benefits to some nominees; this disparate treatment burdens association and communication with voters	The statute imposes at most a minimal burden; parties/candidates retain other means to communicate affiliation; ballots are not forums for political expression and the State may regulate ballots to reduce local partisanship	Any burden is minimal under Anderson/Burdick and is outweighed by legitimate state interests (reducing local partisanship, promoting impartial governance, Hatch Act considerations); claim fails
Whether § 24.2-613(B) violates Equal Protection by treating local candidates differently	Local nominees are similarly situated and thus entitled to equal treatment on ballots	The classification is rationally related to legitimate state interests already identified	Rational-basis review satisfied; statute does not violate Equal Protection

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (States may restrict certain ballot uses; parties have no absolute right to have nominees labeled on ballots)
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (ballots are not public forums for political expression; parties lack right to have nominees designated on the ballot)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing test for evaluating burdens on voting/associational rights)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (rule: level of scrutiny depends on magnitude of burden; reasonable nondiscriminatory restrictions may be upheld)
Rosen v. Brown, 970 F.2d 169 (6th Cir. 1992) (invalidated scheme that labeled party nominees but forbade same-label for nonparty candidates for the same office)
Libertarian Party of Va. v. Alcorn, 826 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2016) (addressed definition/application of recognized political party under Virginia law)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (right to access the ballot is fundamental to party formation and participation)
Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (political organizations’ right to select nominees)
Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005) (states have broad authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of elections)