Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-06-02303/USCOURTS-ca10-06-02303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 

---

*

Mary Herrera succeeded Rebecca Vigil-Giron as Secretary of State of the

State of New Mexico, and is substituted as a party to this appeal. Margaret C.

Toulouse was appointed to serve out the remaining term for Mary Herrera as

County Clerk of Bernalillo County, and is substituted as a party to this appeal. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 7, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW

MEXICO; SIEBERT ICKLER;

MICHAEL BLESSING; JOHN

PFERSICH; STAN RACZYNSKI,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. No. 06-2303

MARY HERRERA, in her official

capacity as Secretary of the State of

New Mexico; MARGARET C.

TOULOUSE, in her official capacity

as County Clerk of Bernalillo County,

New Mexico,*

Defendants - Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

(D.C. NO. CIV-06-615 MV/ACT)

Bryan Sells (Laughlin McDonald with him on the briefs), American Civil

Liberties Union, Atlanta, Georgia, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

David K. Thomson, Assistant Attorney General (Gary K. King, Attorney General

of New Mexico, with him on the brief), Santa Fe, New Mexico, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before MURPHY, BRORBY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

I. Introduction

The Libertarian Party of New Mexico and several of its candidates for

public office sought to be placed on the ballot in New Mexico for the November

7, 2006, general election. Failing to obtain the requisite signatures required under

New Mexico’s election law, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-8-2(B), 1-8-3(C), the Secretary

of State refused to place the candidates’ names on the ballot. The Libertarian

Party and four candidates brought suit for declaratory relief against the Secretary

of State and the County Clerk of Bernalillo County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

filed a request for a preliminary injunction, alleging New Mexico’s two-petition

ballot-access scheme unconstitutionally burdens their First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the

defendants and denied the Libertarian Party’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(f) request for discovery.

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 2 
1

This case remains a live case and controversy and this court has

jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal. Although the 2006 election has passed,

New Mexico’s ballot access provisions will continue to control the Libertarian

Party’s efforts to place its candidates on the ballot. The Libertarian Party sought

declaratory as well as injunctive relief. Even though the case for an injunction

became moot after the election date passed, the principal controversy—whether

the New Mexico ballot access scheme for minor party candidates is

constitutional—continues to affect the Libertarian Party. As the Supreme Court

explained in Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, the relevant inquiry is

whether there is a substantial controversy between the parties having adverse

legal interests to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 416 U.S. 115,

121–22 (1974). Because the Libertarian Party’s claims for declaratory relief are

justiciable, we need not determine whether the individual plaintiffs’ claims for

declaratory relief are moot. See Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 v. Earls,

536 U.S. 822, 827 n. 1 (2002) (“Because we are likewise satisfied that Earls has

standing, we need not address whether James also has standing.”).

2

The number of votes needed varies depending on the office. For

(continued...)

-3-

The Libertarian Party and four of its candidates (collectively referred to

here as the “Libertarian Party”)1

 challenge the district court’s grant of summary

judgment and its denial of the Rule 56(f) motion. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

II. Background

New Mexico classifies political parties in two separate groups for the

purpose of placing candidates for public office on the ballot. Candidates (other

than presidential) from “major political parties” are nominated by secret ballot in

a primary election. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 1-8-1(A). To become a primary candidate,

one must obtain a certain number of signatures from members of the candidate’s

own party. Id. §§ 1-8-31(C)(4), 1-8-33.2

 A major political party is defined as any

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 3 
2

(...continued)

candidates seeking preprimary convention designation in a statewide or

congressional race, nominating petitions must be signed by a number of voters

equal to at least two percent of the total vote of the candidate’s party in the state

or congressional district, or the following number of votes, whichever is greater:

for statewide offices, two hundred thirty voters and for congressional candidates,

seventy-seven voters. Id. § 1-8-33(B). Candidates for other offices must obtain

petitions signed by at least three percent of the total vote of the candidate’s party

in the district or division or an alternative statutory number of votes if greater. 

Id. § 1-8-33(C).

3

Any party which appeared on the 1988 general election ballot is

automatically deemed a qualified party, so long as it has not been disqualified

under N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-7-2(C), which is not at issue in this case. Other parties

must adopt internal rules and regulations, obtain the requisite petition signatures,

and file these documents with the state. Id. § 1-7-2(A).

-4-

qualified party3 which had at least one candidate who received at least five

percent of the total number of votes in the preceding general election for governor

or president of the United States. Id. § 1-1-9(A).

Candidates from “minor political parties” must take a different route to the

ballot. A minor party nominates its candidates by the manner prescribed in its

internal party rules and regulations. Id. § 1-8-1(B). After the party nominates its

candidates, an appropriate party official must certify the names of the candidates

to the secretary of state or county clerk. Id. §§ 1-8-2(A), 1-8-3(A) & (B). This

certification must be accompanied by a petition containing a list of signatures and

addresses of voters for each candidate. Id. §§ 1-8-2(B), 1-8-3(C). Candidates

must obtain signatures equivalent to at least one percent of the votes cast in the

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 4 
4

The number of signatures needed is pegged to the office sought. For

statewide offices, a minor party candidate must obtain one percent of the votes

cast in the last election for president or governor throughout the state. N.M. Stat.

Ann. §§ 1-8-2(B)(1), 1-8-3(C). For non-statewide offices, the minor party

candidate must obtain signatures equaling one percent of the number of votes cast

for governor or president within the particular district. Id. §§ 1-8-2(B)(2),

1-8-3(C).

-5-

last election for governor or president.4 Id. §§ 1-8-2(B), 1-8-3(C). Minor

political parties are defined as any qualified party which has not obtained the

status of major political party. Id. § 1-1-9(B). To become a minor political party,

a political group must file a new-party petition to obtain recognition. Id.

§ 1-7-2(A). The petition must contain the signatures of one-half of one percent of

the total number of votes cast in the state in the last preceding general election for

governor or president. Id. The upshot is that political groups which have not yet

obtained minor party status must go through two rounds of petitioning: one to

become a minor party and then one for each of the candidates it nominates.

The Libertarian Party of New Mexico filed its new-party petition with the

Secretary of State in November 2005. Minor political party status was granted in

April 2006. Thereafter, the party held a convention and nominated candidates for

public office. The party certified its nominees to the Secretary of State, but failed

to obtain the candidate petition required for each candidate by N.M. Stat. Ann.

§ 1-8-2(B). When the Secretary of State refused to place the Libertarian Party

candidates on the ballot, the party and the candidates filed suit under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The Libertarian Party sought a declaration that New Mexico’s twoAppellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 5 
-6-

petition system violated the Constitution and a preliminary injunction mandating

the placement of their candidates on the ballot. The Libertarian Party alleged the

two-petition ballot-access system, which requires the party to first show a

modicum of support and then show additional support for each candidate, imposes

a substantial burden on the party’s ability to have its nominees appear on the

general election ballot. 

The Secretary of State filed a motion for summary judgment on August 17,

2006, approximately five weeks after the complaint was filed. The Libertarian

party requested more time for discovery pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. In a September 2006 order, the district court denied the

Rule 56(f) motion. The district court then granted summary judgment to the

defendants. 

III. Discussion

A. Rule 56(f) motion

In response to the Secretary of State’s motion for summary judgment, the

Libertarian Party attached an affidavit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), arguing

that discovery was needed before the court could rule on the motion for summary

judgment. The affidavit stated with more time, the plaintiffs would:

present expert and lay witness affidavits, answers to

interrogatories, admissions, and documentary evidence

that will create a genuine issue with respect to: (a) the

character and magnitude of the burdens that New

Mexico’s two-petition ballot-access scheme for new

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 6 
-7-

political parties imposes on the plaintiffs’ First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights; (b) the legitimacy and

strength of any interests which the defendants may offer

as justification for the scheme; and (c) the extent to

which those interests make it necessary to burden the

plaintiffs’ rights.

Aplt’s App. at 81 (Aff. of Bryan L. Sells). The affidavit went on to state the

Libertarian Party would specifically show that the magnitude of the burden is

severe, the interests offered by New Mexico are not compelling, and the scheme

is not necessary to advance New Mexico’s interest. In its response to the motion

for summary judgment, the Libertarian Party stated it would seek historical

evidence regarding the burdens New Mexico’s election laws place on new minor

party candidates. 

The district court denied the Rule 56(f) motion, finding historical evidence

was not necessary to assess the character and magnitude of the burdens created by

New Mexico’s ballot access scheme. The Libertarian Party challenges the denial

of their request for discovery. This court reviews the denial of a Rule 56(f)

motion for an abuse of discretion. Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036, 1042 (10th

Cir. 2006).

Rule 56(f) provides:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing

the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated

present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s

opposition, the court may refuse the application for

judgment or may order a continuance to permit

affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 7 
-8-

discovery to be had or may make such other order as is

just.

The Libertarian party argues that under Supreme Court precedent to resolve

the merits of its ballot-access claim, a district court must engage in a fact specific

inquiry and examine the burdens placed on candidates and parties. See Anderson

v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983). Appellants submit that historical

evidence showing the burdens faced by other similarly situated minor party

candidates would prove a severe burden which is not outweighed by any state

interest.

The Secretary of State, echoing the district court’s ruling, counters that

historical evidence is not necessary because the New Mexico ballot-access

scheme is constitutional as a matter of law. Relying on Jenness v. Fortson, 403

U.S. 431, 442 (1971), and American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 787

(1974), the Secretary of State contends the New Mexico petition requirement is

constitutional because more burdensome petition requirements were upheld in

those cases. In Jenness the Court upheld a Georgia requirement that minor party

candidates collect signatures equaling at least five percent of the total number of

voters eligible to vote in the last election for the particular office. 403 U.S. at

433, 442. The Court upheld a similar Texas requirement in which minor party

candidates had to demonstrate support from a number of voters equaling at least

one percent of the total vote cast for governor in the last preceding election with

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 8 
-9-

more stringent requirements on who qualified to sign a minor party candidate’s

petition. Am. Party of Texas, 415 U.S. at 776, 787–88. Further, this circuit

upheld Oklahoma’s five-percent petition requirement for minor party recognition,

noting the percent of support required was “undeniably constitutional.” Rainbow

Coal. of Okla. v. Okla. State Election Bd., 844 F.2d 740, 744 (1988).

The district court’s conclusion that historical evidence was not needed in

light of Jenness and American Party of Texas appears to turn the Anderson

balancing test into a bright line test, ignoring the highly fact specific inquiry

required. We need not, however, resolve this issue. The district court did not

abuse its discretion when it denied the Libertarian Party’s Rule 56(f) motion

because the motion failed to identify any specific facts which would create a

genuine issue of material fact. A party seeking to defer a ruling on summary

judgment under Rule 56(f) must “file an affidavit that explain[s] why facts

precluding summary judgment cannot be presented. This includes identifying the

probable facts not available and what steps have been taken to obtain these facts.” 

Trask, 446 F.3d at 1042 (quotation omitted). A party may not invoke Rule 56(f)

by simply stating that discovery is incomplete but must “state with specificity

how the additional material will rebut the summary judgment motion.” Ben Ezra,

Weinstein & Co. v. Am. Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir. 2000).

The Libertarian Party’s Rule 56(f) affidavit fails to meet the specificity

required by this court. The affidavit does not identify any specific facts the

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 9 
-10-

Libertarian Party sought to uncover or how it will rebut the Secretary of State’s

motion for summary judgment. The affidavit merely recites the legal standards

put forth in Anderson and the need for general evidence to support its claim. For

example, an affidavit which asserts, as the affidavit does in this case, that the

plaintiff will “present evidence which will probably establish the fact that . . . the

magnitude of the burdens is severe. . .” neither informs the district court of

“probable facts not available” nor shows how this evidence will rebut the

Secretary of State’s motion for summary judgment. Based on the affidavit’s lack

of specificity, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request

for discovery.

B. Summary Judgment

The Libertarian Party argues even without additional time for discovery,

the record did not establish the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. 

This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Schulz v. City

of Longmont, 465 F.3d 433, 437 (10th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is

appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The movant bears the initial burden of

making a prima facie demonstration of the absence of a genuine issue of material

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 10 
-11-

fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If, however, the moving party does not bear the burden of

persuasion at trial, it need not negate the nonmovant’s claim. Id. at 325. Such a

movant may make its prima facie demonstration by pointing out to the court a

lack of evidence on an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim. See id.

If the movant meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the

nonmovant to “set forth specific facts” from which a rational trier of fact could

find for the nonmovant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497

U.S. 871, 888–90 (1990); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. To accomplish this, the facts

must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific

exhibits incorporated therein. Alder v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671

(10th Cir. 1998). 

Under the Anderson v. Celebrezze balancing test, a court:

must first consider the character and magnitude of the

asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to

vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise

interests put forward by the State as justifications for the

burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the

[c]ourt must not only determine the legitimacy and

strength of each of those interests, it also must consider

the extent to which those interests make it necessary to

burden the plaintiff’s rights. Only after weighing all

these factors is the reviewing court in a position to

decide whether the challenged provision is

unconstitutional. 

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 11 
-12-

460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983); see also Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992)

(affirming the Anderson standard). 

State statutes which restrict the access of political parties to the ballot

implicate associational rights as well as the rights of voters to cast their votes

effectively. Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193 (1986). These

associational rights, however, are subject to state limitation. The Supreme Court

has held that a state has an important interest in requiring “a significant modicum

of support before printing the name of a political organization’s candidate on the

ballot–the interest, if no other, in avoiding confusion, deception, and even

frustration of the democratic process at the general election.” Id. (quotation

omitted); see also Rainbow Coal. of Okla., 844 F.2d at 743. 

Under this paradigm, the Secretary of State met her initial burden by

demonstrating the absence of evidence supporting the Libertarian Party’s First

and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The Libertarian Party alleged that the onehalf percent party petition requirement, when combined with the one and one-half

percent candidate-petition, was unconstitutionally burdensome. It failed,

however, to offer any evidence to support this claim. The candidates themselves

did not attempt to obtain the signatures and therefore proffered no testimony as to

the burdens the requirement placed on them. Affidavits from other similarly

situated minor party candidates, such as the Green Party, were not obtained to

prove the burden imposed by the candidate petition was severe. Although the

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 12 
-13-

Libertarian Party moved for a preliminary injunction, at the time of summary

judgment it had obtained no affidavits or deposition transcripts and had not

provided the district court with any exhibits that contained facts to create a

disputed material fact. See Alder, 144 F.3d at 671.

To support its argument that the district court erred in granting the

Secretary of State summary judgment, the Libertarian Party argues that the

district court overlooked facts in the record from which a reasonable factfinder

could find for the plaintiff. Specifically, the Libertarian Party argues the petition

scheme held constitutional in American Party of Texas required candidates to

obtain 22,000 signatures, a number fewer than the raw number of signatures

required by New Mexico law. From this, the Libertarian Party reasons a

factfinder could find the New Mexico law was more burdensome. In New

Mexico, the party petition alone required the Libertarian Party to obtain more

than 38,000 signatures; in addition, the candidates still had to satisfy the onepercent candidate-petition requirement. 

This argument was never presented to the district court and is, therefore,

not preserved for appeal. As a general rule a federal appeals court will not

consider an issue “not passed upon below.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120

(1976). This court has held that an argument which may be inferred from a trial

exhibit, but was not otherwise discussed or argued, will not be considered on

appeal. N. Natural Gas Co. v. Hegler, 818 F.2d 730, 734 (10th Cir. 1987); see

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 13 
5

The Libertarian Party also argues the district court erred by concluding

New Mexico’s proffered rationale for the two-petition ballot access

scheme—avoiding voter confusion which results from ballot clutter—was

legitimate. Specifically, it argues the rationale cannot support both the partypetition in addition to the candidate-petition requirement. Because the

Libertarian Party failed to create a genuine issue of material fact with regard to

the existence of a severe burden, an essential element to their case, we need not

address the state’s proffered interest. 

-14-

also Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 722 (10th Cir. 1993). The

Secretary of State introduced an exhibit which included the canvass results from

the 2004 general election. From this exhibit, the raw numbers needed for a

Libertarian Party candidate to obtain access to the ballot can be deduced. The

Libertarian Party, however, failed in the district court to argue that the raw

numbers, in comparison with those in American Party of Texas, could lead a

factfinder to conclude that the New Mexico ballot access scheme is

unconstitutionally burdensome. This argument is therefore foreclosed.5

Without evidence to prove the burden of New Mexico law is severe as to

minor party candidates, there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial as to

an essential element of the Libertarian Party’s claim. The Secretary of State met

her initial burden and the Libertarian Party failed to offer evidence from which a

reasonable factfinder could rule in its favor. Therefore, the district court properly

granted summary judgment for the Secretary of State and County Clerk.

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 14 
-15-

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, this court affirms the district court’s denial of

the Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) motion and grant of summary judgment to the

Defendants. 

Appellate Case: 06-2303 Document: 010165086 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 15