Wilson v. BIRNBERG
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19182
5th Cir.2011Background
- Wilson sought the Harris County Commissioner seat in the Democratic primary; filing occurred 15 minutes before deadline.
- Birnberg denied Wilson's candidacy due to failure to provide a residential address; Wilson listed his business address, which Birnberg supported with public records.
- Wilson's residential address was within the relevant district, but his name was never placed on the ballot.
- Wilson sued in Sept. 2010 in federal court alleging due process and equal protection violations and later challenged Tex. Elec. Code § 141.032(e) as unconstitutional; district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The Fifth Circuit reviews de novo; the issues include mootness of equitable claims, damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the constitutionality and application of the relevant election-code provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson had a property right to be on the ballot. | Wilson asserts a ballot-access right under precedent. | State laws grant no property right to ballot placement. | No property right; due process claims fail. |
| Whether Wilson's due process claim is viable under substantive or procedural theories. | Wilson contends more process or rational basis was due. | Authorities permit fewer protections when state records support ineligibility. | Procedural and substantive due process claims fail. |
| Whether the Equal Protection claim survives scrutiny. | Birnberg's actions were discriminatory and biased. | No intentional discrimination; actions followed public records and state law. | Equal Protection claim fails. |
| Whether Tex. Elec. Code § 141.032(e) provides due process adequate notice. | The statute denies adequate process or hearing. | Immediate written notice with stated reasons is constitutionally sufficient. | Statute affords adequate process. |
| Whether the equitable-relief claims are moot while damages remain actionable under § 1983. | Relief sought would be non-moot if ongoing. | Equitable claims moot after election; damages remain issue. | Equitable claims moot; damages claim not moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1944) (unlawful denial of state office not a due process right; supports no property right)
- Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2010) (required life, liberty, or property interest for due process)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (balancing ballot-access rights against state interests)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (balancing test for ballot-access restrictions)
- Gamza v. Aguirre, 619 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1980) (isolated administrative errors do not imply EP violation)
- Kucinich v. Texas Democratic Party, 563 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 2009) (balancing approach to ballot-access burdens)
- Tex. Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2006) (state officer authority to reject candidacy based on public records)
- True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2009) (summary-judgment standard for failure to state claim)