SAM Party of N.Y. v. Kosinski
987 F.3d 267
2d Cir.2021Background
- In April 2020 New York raised party-qualification requirements: a political organization must now receive the greater of 130,000 votes or 2% of the vote in either the gubernatorial or presidential election to retain party status; parties must requalify more frequently and public campaign-finance matching is scheduled to begin after 2022.
- The SAM Party (Serve America Movement) became a party in 2018 after its gubernatorial ticket received ~55,441 votes; SAM is a process-focused party that often cross-endorses candidates via New York’s fusion voting.
- SAM chose not to participate in the 2020 presidential election (to avoid associating with a major candidate or incurring futile national campaigns) and sued, claiming the new presidential-election requirement violates members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment associational and speech rights.
- New York defends the requirement as a means to ensure parties show a modicum of support, declutter ballots, prevent voter confusion, and limit public spending on nonviable candidacies; the statute leaves independent-ballot access via signature petitions (e.g., 45,000 signatures for statewide independent candidates).
- The district court denied SAM’s motion for a preliminary injunction; the Second Circuit affirmed, holding SAM was unlikely to prevail on the merits because the presidential requirement imposes a nonsevere burden and is justified by important state interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the presidential-election requalification requirement violates First Amendment associational/speech rights | SAM: Requirement compels speech or association with presidential candidates and burdens core party activities, or effectively excludes minor parties | NY: Requirement is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory condition; parties may decline official status or run as independents; it furthers ballot-administration and fiscal interests | Held: SAM not likely to succeed; burden not severe and is justified by State interests |
| Whether the requirement constitutes a severe burden (triggering strict scrutiny) by virtually excluding minor parties | SAM: Presidential trigger will make ballot access virtually impossible for SAM’s strategy and force unwanted engagement in presidential contests | NY: Threshold (2% or 130,000) is comparable to other states; alternative petition routes exist; some minor parties retained status | Held: Not severe — thresholds are mid-range, alternatives permit access, and two minor parties retained status in 2020 |
| Whether SAM faces irreparable harm and whether injunction serves public interest | SAM: Losing party status irreparably harms associational rights and voter choice | NY: SAM has not shown likelihood of success; public interest favors administrable elections and conserving public funds | Held: No irreparable harm shown; public interest favors the State; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (States may condition ballot access on a modicum of support)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for burdens on ballot access)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson–Burdick framework: severe burdens trigger strict scrutiny)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (States may enact reasonable regulations to assure orderly elections)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (upholding signature requirements as measures of public support)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (ballot-access rules that virtually exclude parties impose a severe burden)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (government may withhold public funds from nonviable candidacies)
- Price v. New York State Board of Elections, 540 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2008) (balancing burdens against state interests is deferential but substantive)
- Libertarian Party of Connecticut v. Lamont, 977 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2020) (hallmark of severe burden is exclusion from the ballot)
- Green Party of New York State v. New York State Board of Elections, 389 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2004) (precedent on party-qualification and ballot-access challenges)