Tripp v. Scholz, 872 F.3d 857

In 2014 Illinois Green Party candidates Tabitha Tripp (118th district) and Gary Shepherd (115th) failed to collect the number of notarized petition signatures required for new parties and were disqualified from the general election ballot by the Illinois State Board of Elections (ISBE).
Illinois law treats parties as “new” in a district unless they polled >5% in the prior relevant election; new-party state representative candidates must obtain signatures equaling 5% of voters who voted in the prior regular election, collect them within a 90-day window before filing, and use petition sheets with a notarized circulator affidavit.
Tripp needed ~2,399 signatures and submitted ~1,700 on 199 notarized sheets; Shepherd needed ~2,407 and submitted ~1,800 on 205 notarized sheets. Both received only small numbers of write-in votes in the general election.
Plaintiffs sued, alleging the 5% signature rule, the notarization requirement, and their combination with the 90-day window and district geography violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments (facially and as applied). The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the 5% rule and notarization requirement (standing alone) are not severe burdens and the cumulative scheme (including the 90-day window and rural district size) did not render the overall scheme unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of the 5% signature requirement	5% threshold is an excessive burden on new-party association and ballot access	5% is a historically upheld, reasonable preliminary showing to avoid ballot clutter and frivolous candidates	5% requirement alone is not a severe burden and is constitutional
Constitutionality of the notarization requirement	Notarization imposes logistical and recruiting burdens (time/cost and discourages circulators)	Notarization protects against fraud, aids enforcement, and is practicable in Illinois	Notarization alone is not a severe burden and is constitutional
Cumulative effect: 5% + notarization + 90-day window + rural geography	Together these provisions produce a severe, unconstitutional burden in large/rural districts split by redistricting	The combined rules remain reasonable; required daily/signature rates and local notary availability make compliance feasible	Cumulative scheme does not produce a severe burden; statute is constitutional as applied to these districts
Disparate treatment vs. established parties (comparative burden)	New parties face much higher signature burdens compared with established parties	Different rules serve different legitimate purposes: established parties already demonstrated support	Court rejects comparison as inapt; different thresholds for different purposes are permissible

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for balancing burdens on ballot access against state interests)
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (upholding a 5% petition requirement)
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (upholding notarization-related requirements in party qualification)
Norman v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) (recognizing new-party rights and upholding reasonable regulations)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (permitting reasonable ballot access restrictions to prevent disorder)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (flexible balancing approach to election regulations)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (even slight burdens must be justified by sufficiently weighty interests)
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (states have leeway in election regulation but must justify burdens)
Perez-Guzman v. Gracia, 346 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2003) (striking a notarization rule where notary supply and cost made compliance infeasible)
Stone v. Bd. of Election Commissioners for City of Chicago, 750 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying Anderson/Burdick balancing to ballot-access rules)