Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 15-1162
v.
Plaintiff Appellant,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00479-REP)
Argued:
Decided:
the
Virginia,
brings
constitutional
challenge
to
Virginias
in
Sarviss
arguments
and
accordingly
dismissed
his
Of
principal
concern
to
this
case,
the
law
also
first
tier
includes
candidates
from
parties
or
committee
and
an
elected
3
state
chairman
present
in
Virginia
for
organization
six
months
filing
for
prior
to
office.
any
Id.
nominee
The
only
from
that
organizations
second
political
tier
parties.
includes
For
an
candidates
organization
from
of
recognized
citizens
to
be
for
comprised
office,
of
and
voters
the
state
residing
in
central
each
committee
Virginia
must
be
congressional
the
third
candidates
tier
not
of
the
ballot
associated
with
includes
political
addition
Virginias
to
delineating
ballot
the
ordering
election
law
also
ballots
specifies
three
how
candidates are ordered within the three tiers. In the first two
tiers, candidate order is set by lot. Importantly, this order is
replicated for each office on the ballot, creating party order
symmetry
across
the
ballot
as
whole.
In
the
third
tier,
independent
defendants
candidate
certain
members
filed
of
a
the
complaint
Virginia
that
named
as
State
Board
of
the
repetition
November
yet
2014
evading
elections
review
under
doctrine.
the
The
capable
plaintiffs
of
thus
from
the
ballot
ordering
law
with
regard
to
future
and
issue
an
order
directing
the
defendants
to
thereafter,
Virginia
filed
motion
to
dismiss
state
claim
upon
which
relief
could
be
granted.
The
decisions,
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
courts
should
laws
challenged
by
law
weighing
imposes
the
on
severity
persons
of
the
burden
constitutional
the
rights
ballot
ordering
law
was
not
severe
enough
to
for
neutral
in
this
that
conclusion.
it
does
First,
not
the
entrench
law
is
politically
particular
political
to
the
question
of
Virginias
interests,
the
symmetry,
and
favoring
7
parties
with
demonstrated
had
however,
described
the
the
district
nature
court
and
determined
purpose
of
the
that
three
the
district
development
of
court
the
case
held
that
neither
nor
more
concrete
additional
empirical
The
district
court
then
reviewed
Virginias
three
in
weighing
interests,
the
the
plaintiffs
district
court
burdens
ruled
against
that
the
district
dismiss
the
court
amended
accordingly
complaint.
granted
Virginias
Id.
708-09.
at
motion
Sarvis
to
alone
conferral
of
advantages
8
and
disadvantages
violates
the
premises
district
his
court
constitutional
termed
the
challenge
windfall
largely
vote
on
theory.
contends
that
the
district
courts
Anderson/Burdick
district
courts
analysis
of
the
burdens
imposed
and
to
dismiss
stage.
He
states
that
the
district
court
first
tier,
and
how
it
does
or
does
not
actually
begin
with
the
uncontroversial
proposition
that
the
territory.
This
authority
stems
directly
from
the
and
Manner
Representatives,
of
shall
holding
be
Elections
prescribed
in
for
each
Senators
State
by
and
the
or
alter
such
Regulations,
except
as
to
the
Places
of
constitutional
provisions
are
the
product
of
the
control
Federalist
No.
over
7
congressional
(Cato)
(arguing
elections);
for
state
The
Anti-
control
over
that
For
the
Framers
instance,
the
struck
differs
Framers
chose
for
to
each
type
invest[]
of
the
but
only
so
far
as
Congress
declines
to
pre-empt
522
U.S.
67,
69
(1997)).
With
regard
to
presidential
11
labor
established
by
the
Framers
for
the
regulation
of
to
those
amendments
have
made
still
further
Through
continued
to
them
preserve
all,
for
however,
state
the
Constitution
legislatures
the
has
presumptive
and
state
elections
occurring
within
that
states
boundaries.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized this
enduring
tenet
of
our
constitutional
order,
noting
that
the
power
is
matched
by
state
control
over
the
election
208,
Canvassing
217
(1986));
Bd.,
531
U.S.
see
70,
also
76
12
Bush
(2000)
v.
(per
Palm
Beach
curiam)
Cty.
(noting
state
legislatures
broad
power
over
the
appointment
of
presidential electors).
This arrangement is not only long-standing it also makes
a certain sense. All other things being equal, it is generally
better
for
states
to
administer
elections.
It
is
true
that
But
local
administration
also
allows
for
greater
of
Alexander
control
appearing
Hamilton,
over
out
who
of
reach
vigorously
congressional
and
out
supported
elections,
of
touch.
greater
acknowledged
the
Even
federal
point:
13
Mindful
of
state
regulate
elections,
alleged
burdens
legislatures
we
turn
imposed
by
first
longstanding
to
an
authority
examination
Virginias
of
three-tiered
to
the
ballot
ordering law.
State
voting,
election
regulations
associational
and
often
expressive
implicate
rights
substantial
protected
by
the
932
(4th
Cir.
2014)
(citation
omitted).
The
First
advancement
of
political
beliefs
and
ideas.
S.C.
Green
Party v. S.C. State Election Commn, 612 F.3d 752, 755-56 (4th
Cir. 2010). For example, it is beyond debate that freedom to
engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas
is an inseparable aspect of the liberty assured by the Due
Process
Clause
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment,
which
embraces
357
classifications
Protection
U.S.
also
Clause
449,
violate
of
the
460
(1958)).
rights
protected
Fourteenth
[I]nvidious
by
Amendment.
the
Equal
Williams
v.
Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968). These rights, however, are not
absolute.
All
inevitably
election
affect[]
laws,
at
including
least
14
to
perfectly
some
valid
degree
ones,
the
individuals
right
to
vote
and
his
right
to
associate
with
order
to
distinguish
uniquely
unconstitutional
validity
is
from
unquestioned,
Anderson/Burdick
those
the
we
decisional
laws
whose
majority
employ
the
framework.
burdens
of
laws
Supreme
We
are
whose
Courts
consider
the
by
the
plaintiff
seeks
First
to
and
Fourteenth
vindicate;
Amendments
identify
and
that
the
evaluate
the
each
of
those
interests
and
the
extent
to
which
those
only
modest
burdens
are
usually
justified
by
be
compelling
narrowly
drawn
importance.
to
advance
Burdick,
15
504
state
U.S.
at
interest
434
of
(citation
the
class
limited.
Subjecting
of
laws
too
facing
many
this
laws
to
higher
strict
scrutiny
scrutiny
is
would
the
most
modest
burdens
on
Sarviss
free
speech,
and
nondiscriminatory
neither
Sarviss
Libertarian
are
automatically
subject
to
the
elevated
to
the
same
top
requirements.
of
the
ballot.
None
are
Virginias
complains
party
that
status
the
is
bar
for
nonetheless
achieving
too
first-tier
high,
but
he
first-tier
political
party
status
if
any
of
its
is
not
method
ballot
of
access,
ballot
but
ordering.
rather
But
mere
access
to
ballot
order
denies neither the right to vote, nor the right to appear on the
ballot,
nor
the
right
to
form
or
associate
in
political
organization.
Comparing this relaxed regime with statutes upheld in other
cases demonstrates that Virginias ballot ordering law imposes
only a minimal burden on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
For example, in Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, the Supreme
Court considered the constitutionality of a Washington state law
requiring
that
minor-party
candidate
for
partisan
office
the
law,
because
Washington
ha[d]
not
substantially
on
write-in
voting
imposed
only
very
limited
the
ballot
if
they
had
registered
affiliation
with
to
appear
on
the
Virginia
ballot
with
his
preferred
party affiliation.
Sarvis himself recognizes the limits of the ballot ordering
laws burdens, as he concedes that this case does not rise to a
level of strict scrutiny. J.A. 183-84. He nonetheless maintains
that the law creates a serious consequential burden, because
[c]andidates
in
inferior
ballot
positions
have
strong
theory
likely
to
is
that
choose
uninformed
candidates
or
listed
undecided
higher
on
voters
the
are
more
ballot.
In
to
candidates
from
major
political
parties,
and
18
on
its
face,
Sarvis,
80
F.
Supp.
3d
at
696
(quoting Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 551 F.3d 218, 222 (4th
Cir. 2009)), and that to reach facial plausibility, Sarvis must
plead[]
factual
reasonable
content
inference
that
that
allows
the
the
defendant
court
is
to
liable
draw
the
for
the
that
constitutionally
Virginias
significant
ballot
burdens.
ordering
The
fact
law
creates
remains
that,
argument,
Appellants
19
Opening
Br.
12-13,
it
makes
that
an
Oklahoma
law
placing
Democratic
Party
ordering
system
did
not
violate
the
Equal
Protection
Clause).
It remains far from clear, moreover, that federal courts
possess the power to rule that some voters choices are less
constitutionally meaningful than the choices of other supposedly
more
informed
or
committed
voters.
This
whole
windfall
vote
on
candidates
reasoned
consideration
positions,
considerations. Schaefer
and
v.
free
of
the
from
Lamone,
No.
issues
other
and
the
irrational
1:06-cv-00896-BEL,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96855, at *13 (D. Md. Nov. 30, 2006)
(quoting Clough v. Guzzi, 416 F. Supp. 1057, 1067 (D. Mass.
1976), affd, 248 F. Appx 484 (4th Cir. 2007). As noted, Sarvis
says that his expert would not testify as to the exact degree of
20
theory
cognizable
would
thus
fail
constitutional
to
raise
burden
on
an
inference
First
or
of
any
Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
Given
that
the
Virginia
ballot
ordering
law
does
not
scrutiny,
we
have
no
need
to
conduct
the
kind
of
important
state
interests
support
Virginias
ballot
ordering law.
B.
Virginias three-tiered ballot ordering law is supported by
important regulatory interests. Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358. In
particular, the law may assist the voting process by reducing
21
voter
confusion
and
preserving
party-order
symmetry
across
verification
of
[]
weightiness
is
not
required.
over
the
rules
by
which
we
select
our
whole
207
F.3d
scrutiny
708,
does
716
not
(4th
apply,
Cir.
we
2000).
ask
only
In
cases
that
the
where
state
more
predictable
order.
Listing
candidates
by
party
allows
parties,
candidates
it
from
again
those
aids
parties
the
first
voting
process
to
on
ballot.
Sarviss
the
list
ballot
betrays
not
only
flawed
conception
of
federal
risks
requiring
voters
to
decipher
lengthy
multi-
officials
have
good
reason
to
adopt
ballot
Long
election
lines
may
frustrate
voters
attempting
to
23
March
25,
2016,
at
A13.
Reducing
the
risk
of
this
sort
of
the
advantage
of
maintaining
party-order
symmetry
across
many offices on the ballot. Within the first two ballot tiers,
party order is determined by lot. Va. Code Ann. 24.2-613. The
names of all party-affiliated candidates for particular offices
then appear in the order determined for their parties. Id.
This is so for all federal, statewide, and General Assembly
offices. Id.
The effect of all this is to create a symmetrical pattern
on the ballot. New Alliance Party, 861 F. Supp. at 297. The
ballot law ensures that if a partys candidate for United States
Senator is listed second, for example, then candidates from that
party will be second in lists for other offices as well. This
again advances the states interest in efficient procedures for
the election of public officials. S.C. Green Party, 612 F.3d at
759. It makes the ballot more easily decipherable, especially
for voters looking for candidates affiliated with a given party.
Finally, the ballot ordering law may also favor Virginias
strong interest in the stability of [its] political system[].
Timmons, 520 U.S. at 366. Maintaining a stable political system
is, unquestionably, a compelling state interest. Eu v. S.F.
Cty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 226 (1989). While
24
and
legitimate
American
for
states
democratic
to
life,
correlate
it
is
ballot
also
entirely
placement
with
legislature
from
may
minor
not
completely
parties
or
insulate
independent
the
two-party
candidates
ensures
entity
with
acknowledge
that
at
little
that
least
the
actual
the
two
beneficiary
public
major
will
support.
parties
may
not
Of
be
some
course,
possess
we
self-
Sarviss
several
constitutional
important
rights,
interests
and
Virginia
supporting
the
articulates
law.
In
these
unconstitutional.
Wood,
26
207
F.3d
at
717.
We
leave
27