268 F. Supp. 3d 1227
D. Utah2017Background
- Representative Jason Chaffetz resigned effective June 30, 2017, prompting a congressional special election set for November 7, 2017; the Lieutenant Governor (Lt. Governor) set an accelerated special-election schedule by order of May 19, 2017.
- The United Utah Party (UUP) formed in spring 2017, gathered ~2,700 signatures, held an organizing convention, and nominated Jim Bennett as its candidate; UUP sought registration and qualification during the special-election timeline.
- Utah law permits new parties to register via petition and requires the Lt. Governor to review petitions and certify parties, but the regular registration process contemplates months of lead time before a general election.
- The Lt. Governor’s Special Election Procedures and deadlines (candidate filing May 26 for party nominees; certification deadlines tied to municipal election calendar) provided no path for a newly formed party to have its nominee listed with party designation on the special general-election ballot.
- The Lt. Governor’s Election Office delayed the statutory review of UUP’s petition (May 26–June 26) and completed certification only in mid-July; the Lt. Governor nonetheless stated he would not include the UUP nominee on the special-general ballot even if the party became registered.
- Plaintiffs sued seeking a preliminary injunction ordering the Lt. Governor to place Jim Bennett on the November special-general ballot as the UUP nominee; the court granted the injunction, finding the Special Election Procedures violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lt. Governor’s Special Election Procedures that prevent a newly formed party from appearing on the special-general ballot violate First and Fourteenth Amendment associational and voting rights | UUP/Bennett: the procedures effect a complete bar on new-party ballot access in the special election, severely burdening rights to associate and for voters to choose candidates with party labels | Lt. Governor: accelerated schedule, administrative efficiency, cost-savings, voter confusion concerns, and federal timelines for overseas/military ballots justify following regular statutory procedures and excluding late-formed parties | Court: held procedures impose a severe burden and are not justified; exclusion violates Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; injunction ordered placing Bennett on ballot as UUP nominee |
| Whether plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits under Anderson/Burdick flexible test | Plaintiffs: character/magnitude of injury (complete exclusion) is severe; state interests are insufficient or could be accommodated less restrictively | Defendant: procedural uniformity and timing necessities justify the compressed calendar and exclusion | Court: likelihood of success found—plaintiffs showed strong likelihood under Anderson/Burdick analysis |
| Whether Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief | Plaintiffs: loss of First Amendment freedoms and an irretrievable exclusion from a one-time special election constitute irreparable harm | Defendant: alternative routes (independent or write-in) adequate; administrative burdens of adding party to ballot weigh against injunction | Court: held irreparable harm established; alternatives (independent/write-in) inadequate to protect associational rights |
| Whether bond should be required for preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs: enforcement of constitutional rights justifies waiver of bond | Defendant: did not press for bond | Court: exercised discretion to waive Rule 65(c) bond requirement and required no security |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (sets flexible balancing framework for constitutional challenges to election regulations)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (two-step test: assess character/magnitude of burden, then weigh state interests and necessity of burden)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (recognizes importance of new-party ballot access and that exclusion undermines voters’ rights)
- Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972) (rejects forcing candidates to abandon party affiliation as an unreasonable alternative)
- Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (discusses ballot-access constraints and associational rights)
- Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) (addresses interplay of voter/candidate rights and burdens in election regulations)