774 F.3d 689
11th Cir.2014Background
- Alabama law gives parties ballot access by: (1) performance (20% vote for a state officer) or (2) petition (signatures equal to 3% of votes for governor) by the date of the first primary; in presidential years the primary date (and petition deadline) is in March.
- The Alabama Green, Constitution, and Libertarian Parties (Party Plaintiffs) failed to qualify for 2012 party-label ballot access and thus their presidential nominees (including Jill Stein and Gary Johnson) appeared as independents after each collected 5,000 signatures for independent status by a later September deadline.
- Plaintiffs sued the Alabama Secretary of State under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the March petition deadline and signature requirement violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights (facially and as applied) for presidential elections.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of State, finding Plaintiffs failed to show a severe burden or sufficient evidence that the March deadline and 3% requirement unconstitutionally burdened associational/voting rights.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, adopting the district court’s reasoning and concluding Plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence that the burdens were severe; the State’s interests in fairness among parties and allowing time to verify petitions outweighed the modest burdens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama's March petition deadline and 3% signature requirement for party-label presidential ballot access violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments | The March deadline and high signature threshold unconstitutionally burden minor parties’ associational and voters’ rights by preventing party labels on the ballot | The regime imposes only a slight, nondiscriminatory burden; the State has important interests in fair treatment of parties and time to verify signatures | Held for defendant: Plaintiffs failed to show a "severe" burden; State interests rationally justify the deadline and signature requirement |
| Whether Anderson/New Alliance compel invalidation of March deadlines as a matter of law | March deadlines akin to early-deadline cases (Anderson/New Alliance) and thus subject to heightened scrutiny | Those precedents are distinguishable because Alabama’s law does not bar ballot access (only party label) and minor parties may petition by the primary date; facts matter | Held for defendant: Anderson/New Alliance do not automatically invalidate March deadlines; factual showing required and absent here |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ failure to attempt signature gathering precludes finding a severe burden | Plaintiffs argue attempts would have been futile given cost, low volunteer/voter interest | Defendant emphasizes lack of diligence and points to Americans Elect and other evidence showing access was achievable with effort | Held for defendant: Plaintiffs’ failure of proof (no reasonably diligent attempt or evidence a later deadline would have helped) defeats severe-burden showing |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for presidential-ballot access restrictions | Plaintiffs urge strict scrutiny given national importance of presidential elections | Defendant contends ordinary Anderson/Timmons balancing applies and the burden here is minor | Held: Court applies Anderson/Timmons framework, finds only modest burden; does not adopt a new standard for presidential-ballot access and affirms lower-court balancing result |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (examines early-ballot deadlines and applies balancing test for ballot-access burdens)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (political parties do not have a right to use the ballot as a primary vehicle of political expression; reasonable nondiscriminatory restrictions upheld)
- Swanson v. Worley, 490 F.3d 894 (11th Cir.) (approves 3% signature requirement with primary-tied filing deadline as nondiscriminatory)
- New Alliance Party of Ala. v. Hand, 933 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir.) (invalidated an unusually early filing deadline but found the burden only moderate in some respects)
- Libertarian Party of Fla. v. Florida, 710 F.2d 790 (11th Cir.) (upheld substantial signature requirements in the presidential context)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (notes limited probative value of low success rates alone in proving severe burdens)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (observes that massive signature-collection tasks may be possible with organized effort and do not alone prove impracticality)