CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/14/2023 1

Signature Requirements 

for Independent and New-Party Candidates 

Delaney v. Bartlett 

(Frank W. Bullock, Jr., M.D.N.C. 1:02-cv-741) 

On September 6, 2002, a write-in candidate for the U.S. Senate filed 

a federal challenge to the state’s signature requirement for getting 

on the ballot as an independent candidate. The district court denied 

preelection relief, and the candidate was defeated. In 2004, the 

judge determined that general-election ballot signature requirements for independent candidates—based on the number of registered voters—and new-party candidates—based on the number of 

voters in the last gubernatorial election—were an unconstitutional 

combination. The state modified its requirement for independent 

candidates to be similar to its requirement for new-party candidates. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

equal protection. 

“On September 6, 2002, approximately two months before the election and 

days before the absentee ballots were to be printed,” a write-in candidate to 

be one of North Carolina’s U.S. senators filed a federal complaint in the 

Middle District of North Carolina challenging the signature requirement for 

getting on the ballot as an independent candidate.1

 With their complaint, the 

plaintiffs—the candidate and two of his supporters—filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr., heard the case on September 19 and denied 

the motions.3 One month later, he issued an opinion explaining his reasons.4

The candidate was defeated by Elizabeth Dole.5

On July 26, 2004, Judge Bullock determined that ballot signature requirements for independent and new-party candidates in the general election 

were an unconstitutional combination.6 Independent candidates had to 

submit by the last Friday in June a number of signatures equal to 2% of the 

total number of registered voters; a candidate running on behalf of a new 

party, however, could get the party and the candidate on the ballot for a 

number of signatures equal to 2% of the voters in the most recent gubernato1. Delaney v. Bartlett, 370 F. Supp. 2d 373, 374 (M.D.N.C. 2004); Docket Sheet, Delaney 

v. Bartlett, No. 1:02-cv-741 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2002) [hereinafter M.D.N.C. Docket Sheet]. 

2. M.D.N.C. Docket Sheet, supra note 1. 

3. Id. 

Judge Bullock retired on August 1, 2006. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory 

of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Delaney, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 374; M.D.N.C. Docket Sheet, supra note 1. 

5. Opinion at 3, Delaney, No. 1:02-cv-741 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 24, 2003), D.E. 37, 2003 WL 

23192145 (denying motions for summary judgment). 

6. Delaney, 370 F. Supp. 2d 373. 
Signature Requirements for Independent and New-Party Candidates 

2 Federal Judicial Center 9/14/2023 

rial election, submitted by the first day of June.7 “Given the potential magnitude of the disparity and the historical evidence of ballot exclusion, the burden on unaffiliated candidates vis-à-vis new party candidates appears unreasonable and discriminatory.”8

 Moreover, the requirement based on voter registrations was unconstitutionally vague, because of uncertainty about what 

would be used as the authoritative record for comparison.9

An appeal was dismissed voluntarily on October 21.10 The signature requirement for independent candidates in North Carolina is now 1.5% of the 

most recent gubernatorial vote.11

7. Id. at 375. 

8. Id. at 378. 

9. Id. at 382–85. 

10. Docket Sheet, Delaney v. Bartlett, No. 04-2230 (4th Cir. Sept. 30, 2004). 

11. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-122(a)(1).