2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-6-2010 

# C huck B aldwin v

. P edro C or t es P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2227

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C huck B aldwin v

. P e dr o C or t e s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1383. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1383NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2227 CH UC K B ALD W I N; DA RRELL R. CA STLE ; WES L E Y T HOMP S ON; J AM E S E . P ANYAR D AND T H E C O N S T IT U T IO N P A R T Y O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA , A ppel l ant

v. PE D R O A . C O R T E S, Secr et aryof the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a, in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 1- 08- cv- 01626) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on N ovember10, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , G A R T H and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : M ay6, 2010 )

O P I N I O NA ppel l ant s W es l eyT hom ps on and J ames E. Pany ar d ar e mem ber s of the C ons t i tut i on 1 Par t yand s uppor t ed the B al dw i n/ C as t l e t i cketi n 2008. T he compl ai ntal l eged thatthey i nt ended t o vot e forB al dw i n/ C as t l e. C om pl . ¶ 12. P enn sy l van i a l aw further cl assi fi es som e po l i t i cal part i es as “m i no r pol i t i cal part i es” 2 based o n v oterregi strat i on . S ee 25 P . S . § 2 87 2. 2(a) . L i ke those of p oli t i cal bo dies , candi dat es of m i norpol i t i cal par t i es m us tfi l e nomi nat i on paper s i n or dert o appea ron Penns y l vani a’ s el ect i on bal l ot . See i d. 2 R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: Pl ai nt i ffs appea l t he deni al of dec l ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef bythe D i s t r i ct C our t , w hi ch dec l i ned t o or derPedr o A . C or t es , Secr et aryof the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a, t o i ncl ude pl ai nt i ffs ’ names on the N ovember2008 pr es i dent i al el ect i on b a l l o t . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. T he C ons t i tut i on Par t yi s an al t ernat i ve pol i t i cal part y . I n 2008, i tnom i nat ed C huck B al dw i n and D arr el l C as t l e as i t s candi dat es forPr es i dentand V i ce Pr es i dentof t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y. B e c a u s e th e C o n s t i tu t i o n P a r t y i s a “ p o l i t i c a l b o d y” 1 ra th e r th a n a “ p o lit ica l p a rty ,” a s th o se ter m s a re d e f in e d b yP e n n sy lv a n ia s tate law , itis n o t en tit led to n o m in a te its c a n d id a tes th ro u g h P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s p rim a ryp ro c e ss . Its candi dat es m us tfi l e nomi nat i on paper s i n or derforthei rnames t o appea ron t he gene r al el ect i on bal l ot . See 25 P. S. § 2831. 2 T he nomi nat i on paper s m us tcont ai n a numberof s i gnatur es equal t o t w o per cent of the l ar ges tvot e ca s tforanyel ect ed s t at ew i de ca ndi dat e atthe pr evi ous el ect i on. 25 P. S. § 2911( b) . T he part i es agr ee that , forthe 2008 el ect i on, the numberof s i gnatur esT he ca s es r es ul t i ng i n t he cons entdecr ees w er e H al l v. D avi s , N o. 84- 1057 ( E . D . Pa. 3 J une 14, 1984) , and Li ber t ar i an Par t yof Penns y l vani a v. D avi s , N o. 84- 0262 ( M . D . Pa. Ju n e 1 3 , 1 9 8 4 ). 3 n e e d e d to b e p la c e d o n th e b a llo t f o r P re s id e n t a n d V ic e -P re s id e n t w a s 2 4 ,6 6 6 . C o m p l. ¶ 17; A ppel l ee Br. 8. B ysta tu te, th e d e a d lin e f o r f ili n g n o m in a tio n p a p e rs w ith th e re q u ire d sig n a tu re s is se t f o r th e “ se c o n d F rid a ysu b se q u e n t to th e p rim a ry .” 2 5 P .S . § 2 9 1 3 (b ). In 2 0 0 8 , this d a te w a s M a y2 . H o w e v e r, p u rsu a n t to tw o c o n se n t d e c re e s e n ter e d in f e d e ra l co u rt in 1 9 8 4 , th e d e a d lin e w a s e x te n d e d to A u g u s t 1 . A p p . 1 0 6 , 1 0 8 . 3 O n A ugus t1, 2008, t he C ons t i tut i on Par t ys ubm i t t ed nomi nat i ng paper s cont ai ni ng 21, 957 s i gnatur es . T he pape r s w er e r ej ect ed byPenns y l vani a’ s D epart m entof St at e as c o n tain in g to o f

e w sig n a tu re s. O n A u g u st 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , the C o n stitu tio n P a rtya ttem p ted to su b m it ap p ro x im a tely8 ,0 0 0 a d d iti o n a l sig n a tu re s, b u t th e D e p a rtm e n t o f S tate d e c lin e d to acc eptt he fi l i ng beca us e the A ugus t1 deadl i ne had pa s s ed. T he C ons t i tut i on Par t y , t ogetherw i t h B al dw i n, C as t l e, T hom ps on and Pany ar d, fi l ed a c om pl ai ntand mot i on forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i on i n t he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a on A ugus t29, 2008. T he compl ai ntnamed as the defe ndantPedr o C or t es , Secr et aryof the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a, and al l eged t hatt he A ugus t1 deadl i ne vi ol at ed the U . S. C ons t i tut i on beca us e i tw as es t abl i s hed byt he S e c re ta ry p u rs u a n t to th e c o n s e n t d e c re e s , ra th e r t h a n b yP e n n s y lv a n ia ’s le g is la tu re . C o m p l. ¶ 2 6 .4

T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on t he mot i on forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i on on Sept ember10, 2008. Fi ndi ng t hatt he pl ai nt i ffs had notdemonstr at ed a “ l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on t he mer i t s , ” the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on on Sept ember12, 2008. T h e p lain tiff

s f iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l o n O c to b e r 3 . T h e 2 0 0 8 e lec tio n s w e re d u ly hel d w i t houtt he C ons t i tut i on Par t y ’ s candi dat es on t he gene r al el ect i on bal l ot . T he pl ai nt i ffs t hen fi l ed a mot i on i n t hi s cour ton D ece m ber8 t o vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s the appea l . W e gr ant ed the mot i on and di s m i s s ed the appe al pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 42. U pon r etur n t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , the part i es s ubm i t t ed a s t i pul at i on byw hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng t he mot i on forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w as convert ed t o an entr yof fi nal j udgm enton M ar ch 24, 2009. T he pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a r enew ed not i ce of a p p e a l. II. W e fi r s taddr es s w hethert he appe al i s m ooti n l i ghtof the compl et i on of the 2008 el ect i ons . A l t hough t he part i es agr ee thati ti s notm oot , w e mustnevert hel es s addr es s t he i s s ue t o ens ur e thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on. See W hi t i ng v. K r as s ner , 391 F. 3d 540, 544 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c itin g S te e l C o . v . C itiz e n s f o r a B e tte r E n v ’t , 5 2 3 U .S . 8 3 , 9 4 -9 5 (1 9 9 8 )) . O b v io u slyth e p a ss a g e o f th e 2 0 0 8 e lec tio n s h a s m a d e it i m p o ss ib le f o r a p p e llan ts to r ece i ve the r el i ef or i gi nal l ys ought– pl ace m entof thei rcandi dat es ’ names on the 2008 g e n e ra l ele c tio n b a llo t. A w el l - es t abl i s hed exc ept i on t o t he moot nes s doctr i ne hol ds thatw e have5

j ur i s di ct i on t o deci de t echni cal l ym ootcas es w hi ch ar e “c apabl e of r epet i t i on, y etevadi ng r evi ew . ” R endel l v. R um s fel d, 484 F. 3d 236, 241 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T he exc ept i on appl i es w h e n “ (1 ) th e c h a llen g e d a c tio n is, in its d u ra tio n , too sh o rt to b e f u llylit ig a ted p rio r to c e s s a t i o n o re x p i r a t i o n , a n d ( 2 ) t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n th a tth e s a me compl ai ni ng par t yw i l l be s ubj ectt o the s ame act i on agai n. ” I d. ( quot i ng Spencerv. K em n a, 52 3 U . S . 1 , 1 7 (19 9 8 )). T hi s cas e meet s bot h cr i t er i a. T he pr ocedur al hi s t oryof the ca s e demonstr at es t hat i tcoul d nothave be en ful l yl i t i gat ed bef or e the 2008 el ect i ons , w hi ch t ook pl ace on N ovember4. T he appe l l ant s di d vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s thei rear l i erappea l fr om the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s d e n ial o f

th e ir m o tio n f

o r p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n , b u t o n lya f

ter th e e lec tio n d a te h a d a lre a d yp a ss e d w ith o u t re so lu tio n o f th e a p p e a l. M o re o v e r, b e c a u se th e A u g u st 1 deadl i ne r emai ns i n pl ace and has been a dm i ni s t er ed bythe Secr et aryforeveryel ect i on s i nce the entr yof the 1984 cons entdecr ees , i ti s ent i r el yl i kel ythatappel l ant s w i l l be s ubj ectt o i ti n futur e el ect i on cy cl es , cr eat i ng the s ame cont r over s ythatt ook pl ace i n the m os tr ece ntone. T he i ns t antappea l thus pr es ent s a ca s e w hi ch i s “capabl e of r epet i t i on, y e t ev a d in g re v iew .” W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to d e c id e it. III . T h e C o n stitu tio n p ro v id e s th a t ea c h sta te s h a ll ch o o se p re sid e n tial e lec to rs “ in s uch M anneras t he Legi s l atur e ther eof maydi r ect . ” U . S. C ons t . ar t . I I . , § 1, cl . 2. See M cPher s on v. B l acke r , 146 U . S. 1, 27 ( 1892) ( not i ng the C ons t i tut i on “l eave s i tt o t he6

l e g i s l a tu r e e x c l u s i v e l yt o d e f i n e t h e me t h o d ” o f

a p p o i n t i n g p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t o r s ) . As not ed above , t he s t atut or ydeadl i ne forfi l i ng nom i nat i on paper s i s “the s econd Fr i day s u b s e q u e n t to th e p ri m a ry,” 2 5 P .S . § 2 9 1 3 (b ), a n d in 2 0 0 8 th a t d a te w a s M a y2 . A ppel l ant s ar gue that , beca us e s t at e l egi s l atur es have e xcl us i ve author i t yt o det erm i ne the m annerbyw hi ch el ect or s ar e chos en, the Secr et aryof the C om m onw eal t h vi ol at ed the C ons t i tut i on byagr eei ng t o t he A ugus t1 deadl i ne i n 1984 and enf or ci ng i tagai ns tthe appel l ant s i n 2008. T her e i s no author i t yt o s uppor tappel l ant s ’ pos i t i on. A ppel l ant s r el ypr i m ar i l yon L i ber t ar i an Par t yof O hi o v. B runner , 567 F. Supp. 2d 1006 ( S. D . O hi o 2008) . B runner i s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , and w e do notfi nd i tper s uas i ve i n l i ghtof the s i gni fi cant d iffe ren ce s b etw ee n itan d the c ase at ba r. U nl i ke the O hi o Secr et aryof St at e i n B runner , her e the Secr et aryof the C o m m o n w e a lth p ro m u lg a ted n o n e w ru le. In ste a d , the S e c re tar ym e re lye n f o rc e d a ru le th a t h a d b e e n in p lac e b yc o u rt-a p p ro v e d c o n se n t d e c re e sin c e 1 9 8 4 . In B ru n n e r, th e O h io Secr et aryof St at e cr aft ed an e nt i r el ynew el ect i on- l aw r egi m e t o fi l l the voi d l eftbyt he S ixth C ir cu it ’s ruli n g in L ibertarian P artyo f O h io v . B lack w ell , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 5 7 9 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); h e re , the S e c re tar yo f th e C o m m o n w e a lth sim p lya p p lied th e n e a rly2 5 -y e a r-o ld A ugus t1 deadl i ne. T he Secr et aryper form ed hi s dutyas an exe cut i ve off i cerbyappl y i ng a rul e thathad bec om e w el l es t abl i s hed by2008. I tcannotfai r l ybe s ai d t hat , i n doi ng s o, the S ec retaryac ted in a leg isl ati v e c ap ac ityo r i n an yw ayu su rpe d the leg isl ature ’s7

author i t y . T hus B runner , even i f l egal l ycorr ecton i t s ow n fac t s , i s m at er i al l ydi s s i m i l ar fr om t he i ns t antcas e. T o the e x tent that ap p ell an ts argu e tha t th e u n co n sti tuti o n al ac t w as th e S ec retary ’s 1 9 8 4 e n tryin to th e c o n se n t d e c re e s itse lf , the a rg u m e n t f

a ils in lig h t o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia leg isla tu re ’s e x p licit d e leg a tio n o f a u th o rityto th e S e c re tar yo f th e C o m m o n w e a lth to admi ni s t ert he s t at e el ect i on s cheme. See 25 P. S. § 2621. T he appe l l ant s have not d em o n str ated that the S ec retary ’s ag ree m en t t o the c o n sen t dec ree s ex ce ed ed h is st atuto ry d e leg a ted a u th o rity– p a rticu lar lysin c e th e P e n n sy lv a n ia L e g isla tu re h a s s e e n n o n e e d to exer ci s e w hatpow eri thas ( i f any ) t o al t erthe dea dl i ne i m pos ed bydecr ee. N orcan a ppel l ant s dr aw s uppor tfr om B us h v. G or e, 531 U . S. 98 ( 2000) . T he m aj or i t ypercur i am opi ni on i n B us h found thatthe r ecountor der ed bythe Fl or i da S u p re m e C o u rt v io la te d th e E q u a l P ro te c tio n C la u s e o f th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. A p p ell an ts po int t o C h ief Ju sti ce R eh n q u ist ’s co n cu rri n g o p inion , w h ich d iscu ssed A rt . II, § 1, cl . 2, and emphas i zed the s t at e l egi s l atur e’ s excl us i ve author i t yt o defi ne the met hod of appoi nt m entof pr es i dent i al el ect or s . B uti tdi d s o i n or dert o expr es s doubtr egar di ng t he co nst i tuti on al vali dityof the F l ori da S up rem e C ou rt ’s recoun torder; i tdid not address ( l etal one curt ai l ) t he s t at e l egi s l atur e’ s author i t yt o del egat e admi ni s t r at i ve author i t yt o an exec ut i ve off

i cer . I n fac t , C hi ef J us t i ce Rehnqui s t ’ s concurr ence not ed w i t h appar ent appr oval t he Fl or i da l egi s l atur e’ s deci s i on t o “del egat e[] the author i t yt o run the el ect i ons a n d to o v e rse e e lec tio n d isp u tes to th e S e c re tar yo f S tate .” Id . at 1 1 3 -1 4 . N o th in g in8

B u sh v . G o re su g g e sts th a t th e S e c re tar yo f th e C o m m o n w e a lth w a s p o w e rle ss e ith e r to adoptort o enfor ce the A ugus t1 deadl i ne. F i nall y , t he S ecret aryaptl ypo i nts ou tthe sel f-defeat i ng natur e of a pp el l ants ’ ar gum ent . T he cha l l enged a ct i on extended the t i m e i n w hi ch t o s ubm i ta val i d pet i t i on w i t h s uffi ci ents i gnatur es , openi ng bal l otacc es s r atherthan r es t r i ct i ng i t . Pl ai nt i ffs now s eek r el i ef thatw oul d m ake the nomi nat i on pr oces s m or e oner ous forthemsel ves and for ot hercandi dat es fr om m i norpol i t i cal part i es . W e do notper cei ve anyl egal s uppor tfor t hi s pos i t i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof Sept ember12, 2008, and i t s j udgm entof M ar ch 24, 2009, w i l l be af fi r m ed.