## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3218 A LL AN J. S T EV O, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. J OHN R. K EI TH, e tal

. , i n thei r capaci ti es as m em ber s o fthe I l l i noi s S tat e Boar d ofEl ecti ons, D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08- 3162

—Richar d M il ls, Judge

. A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 25, 2008

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 1, 2008

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, an d F LA UM, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Circu it Judg e . The pl ai nti ffwants to r un as a n i nd ependent candidate f or the U
. S. H ouse ofRepres entati ves f ro m I l l i noi s’ s Tenth Congr ess i onalDis tr ict, wh i ch encom pa s ses part s o fLake and C oo k Counti es. H i s peti ti on to appear o n the N ove m ber20 08 general e lecti on ba l l ot w as ch all en ged by a l ocal residen t beca u se th e plaintiff h ad faile d to su b m it w ith h is pe tit ion th e req u isi t e m in i-2 N o. 08

- 3218

m um num bero fsi gnatur es ofper sons quali fi ed to vo te i n the el ecti on. That nu m beris 5 percent ofthe num bero f peopl e who vot ed i n th e d ist ri ct in the l astco ngre ssi onal el ecti on. 10 I LC S 5/ 10- 3. Fo r the Tenth Congre ssi onal Dist ri ct, the m i ni m um r equi re d num bero fval i d si gnatu res is 10,285, an d the p laint iff claim s tha t he h ad m ore than 7, 200. The I l l i noi s S tat e Board ofEl ecti ons rul ed th athe ha d o nl y 6 , 97 8 va l i d s i g na tu r es ; i n an y e ve nthe does not cl ai m thathi s “ m or e than 7, 200” r eached 10 , 285. The pla i nti f fcl ai m s that the 5 perce nt r equi re m ent deni es e qu a l pr o t e c t i o n o f the l a ws a nd i nfr i ng e s F i r s tA m endm ent r i ghts to sta nd f orpubli c o ffi ce an d t o v o te f o r the c a n d id at e o f on e’s ch oic e. Je nne s s v. Fo r t s on , 40 3 U.S

. 43 1, 43 4 (1 97 1); B ullo ckv. C a rter, 405 U
. S. 134, 143 ( 1972 ) ; J am es A

. Ga rd ne r, “D eliberat ion or Tab ulation? Th e Self-U nd ermi n i n gC o n s t i t u t i o n a l A r c h i t e c t u r e o fE l e c t i o n C a mpai gns, ” 5 4 Buff

. L. Re v. 14 13 , 1 432 ( 2007 )

. A candi date den i ed a pl ac e on th e I l l i no i s ba l l o t ca n, i t i s tr ue , c o nd u c t a w rit e-in ca m p aig n . “St at e o f Ill in ois C an d idate’ s G u ide 200 8” 41 w w w . el ecti ons. i l

. gov /Down l oads/ El e c t i o nInfo r mati o n/PD F / 0 8 Ca nG ui de

. pd f( vi si te d S e pt. 30 , 2008 ). Bu t tha t is an i nferior al ter na tive to havin g one’s n am e o n th e b allo t. U
. S. Te r m Li m i t s , Inc . v. Thor nt on , 51 4 U .S. 77 9, 83 0-3 1 (1 99 5); L u bin v . P a nish , 41 5 U.S

. 70 9, 71 9 n. 5 ( 1974 ). The dis tr i ct c ourt di sm i sse d the co m pla i nt f orf ai l ure to st at e a cl ai m . The appe alre l i es m ai nl y on equa l pr o te ct i o n; t he F i r s tAmen dme ntc l a i m i s n o tde v e l o pe d. A l l co ngre ssi onald istr i cts m ust be r edi str i cted after ea c h d ec en n ial c en su s. G eorgi a v. A shcroft, 53 9 U.S

. 46 1, 48 8N o. 08

- 3218 3

n. 2 ( 2003 ) ; I l l

. Const. ar t. I V § 3; 10 I LC S 76/ 1- 76/ 99; A dam Cox, “Par ti san F ai rnes s a nd Redi str i cti ng Pol i tics ,” 79 N
. Y. U
. L. Re v. 75 1, 75 2- 53 ( 2004 )

. A nd f orthe fi rs t e l ecti on afte r the de ce nni alc en su s I l l i nois r equi r es i nde pen den t candidate s t o obta i n onl y 5 , 000 val i d si gnatur es f ro m qua li fi ed v o te r s, r athe r tha n the 5 pe r ce ntr equi r ed i n the oth er elections. 10 I L C S 5/10-3; Li b e r t ar i an Party v . Re dnou r, 10 8 F.3 d 768, 77 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)

. I n one congr ess i onal d i s t r i c t, t h e F o u r t h, 5 , 0 0 0 i s mo r e th a n 5 p e r c e n t o ft he vo te r s i n th e l as t ( 20 06 ) co ng r es si o na l el ec ti o n (5 percent i n that dist ri ct i s o nl y 4 , 293) , but i n the othe rs it is l ess and i n the Tenth Congre ssi onalDis tr i ct, with i ts re quir em ent o f10 , 285 si gnatur es, 5, 000 i s l es s th an hal fo f 5 per ce nto fthe v o te s ca sti n the l as t el ec ti o n. The aver age num bero fr equi re d si gnatur es per dist rict i s 9, 44 2. The F o ur th, wi tho nl y 4 , 29 3, is an o ut l i er ; the ne xtl o wes t i s th e F i fth, w ith 7, 71 3. The hi g he sti s th e N i netee nth, with 1 2, 205. ( The sour ce o fthes e fi gure s i s “ S i g n a t u r e R e q u i r e me n t s a n d F o r ms

— U
. S. Repres entati ve i n Congre ss, ” ww w . el ecti ons. sta te. i l

. us/Down l oads/ Ele ctionI nfo rm ati on/ PD F/usre p. pd f( vi si ted S ept. 30 , 20 08 )

. ) Al th o ug h the S upr eme Cou r t’ s r ea ppo r ti o nm en t j uri sprudence r equi re s that c ongr ess i onaldi str i cts be o f eq u a l p op u lat ion , Karcherv. D agg et t, 46 2 U.S

. 72 5, 73 0- 31 (19 83 ); Wesberry v . S a n d ers , 3 76 U. S

. 1 , 1 7- 18 ( 19 64 ) , the 5 per ce ntr ul e p r o duce s di ff er en t number s i n di ff er en t d ist ric ts w ith ou t v iola tin g t h e C on st itu tio n be c au se it is 5 p er c en t o f th e n u m b er of p er so n s w h o a c tu ally vo te d in a di st r i ct, no t 5 per ce nto fthe di st r i ct ’ s po pul at i o n. T h e la st d ec en n ial c en su s w as in 2 00 0, a n d n o Illino is co ng r es si o na l di st r i ctwas r edi st r i ct ed afte r the mos t r ec en t4 N o. 08

- 3218

con gressiona l election, held in 2 006. Bu t the plaintiff ar gues that ther e i s no di ff er ence between a new l y r edi str i ct ed di st r i cta nd a di st rict th ati s unc ha ng ed sinc e th e l astel ecti on, and ther ef or e the st ate’ s j ud gm ent that 5, 000 si gnatur es i s enough i n a new l y re dist ri cted d istr i ct p ro ve s t h at 5 p er c en t is to o s tr in ge n t a req u ire m en t in anydi str i ct in w hi ch the 5 p er c en t f or m ula yi el ds a r equi r emento fmor e th an 5, 00 0 si g na tu r es , su cha s th e Te nth. T h e Su p re m e C ou rt h as h eld th at 5 p er c en t is a p er m iss ibl e mi ni mum s i gna tur e r e qu i r e men t f orpl aci ng thi rd- party or in d ep en d en t c an d id at es on th e b allo t, Je nne s s v. Fo r t s on , s u p ra , 403 U .S. at 4 39 -41 ; N ader v. Kei th , 3 8 5 F
. 3 d 7 29, 73 3 (7t h C ir. 20 04 ), p r o v i d ed th at th er e is n ot on ly a w rit e-in al ter nati ve but al so other m eans ofgetti ng one’ s ca nd i dacy bef or e the el ecto ra te, such as fi nd i ng sponso rs hi p by a p o l i t ica l org an iza tio n, Je nne s s v. Fo r t s on , sup ra , 4 0 3 U. S

. at 43 8; H al l v. Si m co x, 7 66 F
. 2d 11 71 , 1 174 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 5) , a nd pr o vi ded al so tha t the s ta te do es no t i m po se “ su ff o ca ting re st ric tio n s” on b allo t a c c es s. Je nne s s v. Fo r ts on , sup ra , 40 3 U
. S. at43 8. I l l i noi s doe s no t. S ee N ader v. Kei th , sup ra , 38 5 F
. 3d at7 34

- 35 ; 1 0 I LCS 5/ 10 -6, 5 / 10

- 8 to 5 / 10

- 10

. Butthe pl aintif f argue s th atI l l i no i s’ s di spa r at e tr ea tmento fthe tw o t yp es of d is t r i c t s h ow s t h at a 5 p er c en t m in im u m is arbi tr ar y, atl eas t i n I l l i noi s. H e i s usi ng the 5, 000- si gnature s pro vi si on o fthe law ju st to show that i fi t i s g oo d enough i n new l y r edi str i cted d i str i cts, i t i s g oo d enough i n al l di str i cts. The s ta te de f en ds th e di spa r i tyi n tr ea tmentbet wee n the tw o types ofdi str i ct on the ground that i t i s i m possibl e t o cal cul ate a perce ntage of the vot es i n the previ ous e l ecti onN o. 08

- 3218 5 i n a r e di s t r i c t e d di s t r i c t b e c a us e b y de fi ni t i o n the re was no pre vi ous e l ecti on i n that dist ri ct

— th e d istri ct d idn ’t ex ist . B u t vo te t ot als a re r ep or te d fo r ea c h p re c in c t, an d , i f a di st r i ct ’ s bo unda r i es a r e ch an g ed , the v o te s ca sti n the pr e v i o us e l e c t i o n i n the p r e c i nc t s wi thi n the ne w b o un dar i es can be added up and the sum w i l l be the to talnum ber o fv o te s th atw ere ca sti n tha t ar ea i n the l as t el ec ti o n. In d ian a d oe s t h at in d et er m in in g, w h en a d i s t ric t is re dist ri cted, the num bero fvo tes th at w as casti n the l ast el ecti on i n the ar ea em bra ced by th e new dist ri ct; that num ber i s the n mul t i pl i e d b y the r e qu i r e d p e r c e nt a g e o f val i d si gnatur es to deter m i ne wh etherthe candidate has th e si g na tu r es o fe no ug h qua l i fi ed vo te r s to g eto n the ballot. See I nd iana C od e §§ 3-8-6-3( a), 12(b)( 7), ( c), ( d ). B ut thi s su i t f ai l s ev eni fI ndi an a’ s pr o ce dur e f o r de term i ni ng the pre vi ous turnout i n the ar ea encl ose d by new dist ri ct b oundari es is e nti re l y feas ibl e ( as w e’ l las sum e, though di str i ct b ounda rie s s om eti m es sl i ce thro ugh p recinc ts an d th e t urn ou t in each sli ce cou ld n ot be d eterm in ed w ith p re c isio n or p er h ap s a t a l l )

. R ed ist ric tin g is a d isori enti ng ev ent f orvo ter s a nd candi dates al i ke, si nce i t chang es the e l ecto ra te, usually w ith an eye to im p ro vin g t h e e lec to ra l p ro sp ec ts of th e m ajorit y p ar ty in th e leg isla tu re d oin g t h e re d ist ric tin g. Gaff ney v . Cum m i ngs , 41 2 U .S. 73 5, 75 3-5 4 (1 97 3); Shaw v

. Re no , 50 9 U.S

. 63 0, 66 1 (19 93 ) (W h ite , J. , d iss en tin g); La Port eCounty Repub l i ca n C entra l C o m m ittee v. B o a rd o f C o m m ission ers , 4 3 F.3 d 1126, 113 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)

. Cand i dates and vote rs al i ke m ust adj ust t o the ne w p olit i call andscape. I t i s pl ausibl e that i t would be m or e di ffi cu lt forcandi dates to obt ai n si gna-6 N o. 08

- 3218
ture s i n such ci rcum sta nces, and so the re quir ed num ber i s r e du c e d. The m etho d that I l lin oi s use s t o re du ce the r equi re d numberi s cr ude , ho wev er, b ecaus e di st r i ct s va r y i n the numbe r o fp e o pl e wh o v o t e d in the l a s te l e c t i o n. Hence the a nom aly ofthe dist ri ct in w hi ch the re quir em ent o f 5 , 0 0 0 s i g n a t u r e s i s mo r e d e ma n d i n gth a n th e 5 p e r c e nt re quir em ent, m aki ng i t m or e di ffi cul t f orcandi dates to obt ai n the req u ire d num bero fsi gnatur es i n el ecti on yea rs i n w hi ch the dist ri ct has been re dist ri cted even though the o bj ecti ve ofr equi ri ng “o nl y” 5, 000 si gnatur es i n n ew district s i s to make the pr o ce ss o fqua l i fy i ng for a p lace o n t h e ball ot less difficult (albeit i t is m ore d iffic u lt in only tha t one d istri ct). B ut the p lai nt iff’ s propos al

— a r equi re m ent in eve ryel ecti on o fj u st 5, 000 si gnatur es

— i s a s o r m or e a rbi tr ar y, sin ce, o therthi ngs bei ng equal, i t i s e asi erto o btai n a s peci fi ed n u m b er o f si g na tu r es the l ar g erthe tur no uti n the di st r i cti n the prece ding el ecti on a nd hence the s m all erthe perce ntage ofqual i fi ed vot er s whom the candidate i s re quir ed to si gn up t o r each th e m i ni m um numbe r a nd s o g eto nt o the bal l ot. There ar e m or e fi sh i n the pond , so i t i s easi erto catc h th e requ ired n um ber. G ran ted , other th ings m ay not be equ al. Th e m ore si g na tu r es tha t are r equi r ed, the g r ea te r the c o st, a nd the diffe rence m ay be i m port ant f ora m i nor - partyo r i nd ep en d en t c an d id at e. H al l v. Si m co x, sup ra , 7 66 F. 2d at 1174

. B u ta tb e s tth i s p o i ntm a k e s th e c h o i c e b e t we e n n u mberand perce ntage a sta nd off; i t does not j usti fy i nval i dati ngthe pe r ce nt ag e appr o ac h.N o. 08

- 3218 7 Suppose the I nd i ana a pp ro ach, w here by disa ggr ega ti on o fv o t e s t o the p r e c i nc tl e v e l i n the p r e c e di nge l e cti on enabl es the s am e p er centag e t o be r equi re d i n dis tr i cts that have re centl y b een r edi strict ed and dis tr i cts that ha ve no t be en, i s i nde ed a co m pel l i ng l y s upe r i o r a ppr o ac h; never thel ess the pla i nti ffw oul d not have standi ng to ur ge i ts a do pti o n b ec au se he c o ul d no t sh o w h ar m . The I ndi an a appr o ac h i s a so l ut i o n t o the pr o bl em o fde term i ni ng pr e v i o u s v o t e r t u r n o u t a ft e r a r e d i s t r i c t i n g, a nd t he Tenth Congre ssi onalD ist ric t i s no t a newly re dist ri cted di s t r i c t
. S o t he pl a i nt i ff i s f o r c e d t o a r g ue tha ta u n i fo rm r u l e r e q u i r i n g5 , 0 0 0 s i g na t ur e s ( o r a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r n u mber, pro vi ded i t is b elo w the num bero fval i d si gnatur es he was abl e to o bt ai n) i s so f arsup erio r t o the pr es en t sys tem thatthe Consti tuti on r equi re s that i t be substi tuted f ori t. That i s wrong, gi ven the dis pari ty i n vot er turno ut i n the diff er ent di str ict s. W e hav e j ust s een that re q u irin g a n u m b er rat h er th an a p er c en ta ge m ay w ell b e a ba d fea tu re of Illin ois ’s t re at m en t o f ele c tio n s in re centl y r ed istr i cted di str i cts; the pla i nti ffurg es us to i m pose that quit e pos sibl y i nfe ri orm etho d i n al l el ecti ons, r athe r tha n, a s atpr es en t, i n j us t th e el ec ti o ns i n new l y r edi str i cted di str i cts. W e war ne d i n Crawf

or d v . M a ri on County El e ct i on Board, 472 F. 3d 949, 954 ( 7th Cir

. 2007 ) , affi rm ed, 128 S. C t. 16 10 ( 2008 ) , ag ai nst federalj ud i ci alm i cro m anage m ent o fst ate r e g ul a t i o n o fe l e c t i o ns . S e e a l s o C l i n gm a n v . B eav er, 54 4 U .S. 58 1, 59 3 (2 00 5); Bur di ckv. Takus hi, 50 4 U.S

. 42 8, 43 2- 34 (19 92 ); S tore r v. Br own , 4 15 U. S

. 7 24 , 7 29

- 30 ( 19 74 )

. But th e appe ali n thi s ca se f ai ls o n a mor e ba si c l ev el : the ch an g e th e pl ai nt i f fa sk s us t o make i n the Il l i no i s vo ting8 N o. 08

- 3218 sys tem m i ght wel l m ake tha t system m or e a rbi tr ar y than i t a l re ady i s. A FFI RMED .

10- 9- 08