Document: 403 U.S. 431 91 S.Ct. 1970 29 L.Ed.2d 554 Linda JENNESS et al., Appellants,v.Ben W. FORTSON, Secretary of State Georgia. No. 5714. Argued March 1, 1971. Decided June 21, Syllabus Georgia law provides that any political organization whose candidate received 20% or more the vote at most recent gubernatorial presidential election is a 'political party.' Any other body.' 'Political parties' conduct primary elections, and name winning for each office printed on ballot. A nominee body' an independent may have his ballot if he files nominating petition signed by not less than 5% those eligible to last seeking. The time circulating 180 days, it must meet same deadline as in party primary. Electors who sign are restricted way, there no limitation write-in votes ballots. Held: challenge appellants, prospective candidates registered voters, this procedure was properly rejected does abridge rights free speech association secured First Fourteenth Amendments violative Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 23, 89 5, 21 24, distinguished. Pp. 434—442. 315 F.Supp. 1035, affirmed. Peter E. Rindskopf, Atlanta, Ga., appellants. Robert J. Castellani, appellee. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 Under elective public enter win party's can general only has filed least number voters question.1 also pay filing fee equal annual salary seeking.2 This litigation arose when were voters,3 class action United States District Court Northern Georgia, attacking constitutionality these provisions Election Code, seeking declaratory injunctive relief. 2 three-judge court convened pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 2284. Thereafter appellants motion summary judgment based upon stipulation relevant facts. granted entered injunction with respect filing-fee requirement, holding requirement operates deny protection laws applied cannot afford fees. No appeal taken from order. With nominating-petition denied refused injunction, statutory provision constitutionally valid.4 From refusal direct brought here under § 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction.5 3 basic structure pertinent Code relatively uncomplicated. party.'6 body.'7 regulated detail state law, wins subsequent election, question.8 candidate, hand, petition.9 be 'a electors five per cent. total filling * *'10 allowed days,11 second Wednesday June, meet.12 4 It procedures relate right There whatever, procedural substantive, voter write choice counted. 5 In mounted their attack Georgia's two different but related constitutional fronts. First, they say require nonparty secure signatures certain before freedoms guaranteed supporters Amendments. Secondly, requires printing ballot, yet prints names won nomination primaries violates Amendment denying laws. Since both arguments primarily Court's decision becomes necessary examine case some detail. 6 confronted electoral favored 'two particular parties—the Republicans Democrats—and effect tend(ed) give them complete monopoly.' Id., 32, S.Ct., 11. held unconstitutional Ohio insofar combination made 'virtually impossible new party, even though ha(d) hundreds thousands members, old which very small placed ballot' 1968 election. 7. 'no position distinguished parties,' id., 26, 8, order had 'to obtain petitions qualified totaling 15% ballots cast preceding election.' 24—25, But preliminary. For, although American Independent Party first six months obtained 450,000 signatures—well over requirement—Ohio nonetheless place reason 'burdensome procedures, requiring extensive activities early date,' 33, 11—'including (February 7, 1968) conforming detailed rigorous standards. *' 27, 8.13 7 separate Douglas described then Ohio's network accurate detail: 8 'Ohio, through entangling web laws, effectively foreclosed its all Democrats. done so initially abolishing restrict candidacy ballot; eliminated nominees enjoy endorsement party; defined party' such way exclude virtually major parties. 9 'A seeks compile voting year, 1968, would need 433,100 signatures. Moreover, succeed gathering long since February. That all: having compiled signatures, further show group qualifies within meaning law. enough President wide popular support; one trace support party. 10 'To qualify participate primary, electing members county ward precinct central committee; congressional district delegates alternates national convention. seek positions committeemen convention demonstrate did during four years; present behalf anywhere 1,000 likewise failed Thus, third erect elaborate machinery, rest ranks proved unwilling unable vote.' U.S., 35—37, 13. 11 'entangling laws' unambiguous positive. 'the totality restrictive whole imposes burden associational hold invidious discrimination, violation Clause.' 34, 12.14 12 case, clear, presented scheme vastly us here. Unlike Ohio, freely writein votes. every fully recognizes candidacies. fix unreasonably endorsed established impose Procrustean establishing machinery. Finally, sum, unlike Ohio's, do operate freeze status quo. setting Constitution. 13 Anyone wishes, otherwise eligible, organization, however small, endorse person whatever chooses. So far concerned newly formed organizations wholly associate, proselytize, speak, write, organize campaigns school thought wish. They confine themselves Or seek, months' period, electorate question. If choose latter course, open. For suffocating restrictions circulation petitions. others,15 thereafter primary.16 signer required intends election.17 previously voted petition,18 so, hand previous election.19 signature notarized.20 14 open quality system merely theoretical. facts record informs Governor 196621 1968,22 gained designation petitions, went plurality election.23 15 word, freezes quo, implicitly potential fluidity life. body much attendant obligations, polls falls below figure reverts responsibilities freedom duties. We find nothing abridges 16 appellants' claim Clause fares better. necessarily bottomed premise inherently burdensome gather majority primary.24 uncritically accepted. Although will, vary appellee's brief advises year primaries. Only 12, Surely argument could well lost, vis-a -vis simply electorate. 17 fact is, point view aspires alternative routes available getting He circulate either sponsorship organization.25 see how violated making paths, neither assumed other. 18 Insofar deal claims body,' contrasted individual aspirant voter,26 situation somewhat different. true assured nominee—the winner—printed whereas will been contain requisite hardly suppose seriously urge interests advanced forced establish statewide, county-by-county, organizational paraphernalia condition conducting election.27 Indeed, large invalidation supra, precisely just requirements organizations. 19 obvious differences kind between needs potentials historically broad support, guilty discrimination recognizing providing Sometimes grossest lie treating things exactly alike, truism illustrated supra. 20 surely important interest preliminary showing significant modicum organization's ballot—the interest, other, avoiding confusion, deception, frustration democratic process sure, apparently higher percentage shown many position,28 balanced imposed arbitrary eligibility wishes. insulated single voices borders. 22 BLACK HARLAN concur result. Ga.Code Ann. 34—1010 (1970). 34—1013. One Socialist Workers 1970, others House Representatives, sued themselves, 'all desirous opportunity consider persons Democratic Republican parties.' Fortson, 1035. 400 877, 127, 27 114. 34—103(u). 34—103(s). See, e.g., 34—1004 34—1006, 34—1008, 34 1009, 34—1014, 34—1015, 34—1102, 34—1301 34—1303, 34—1308, 1507, 34—1513. 34—1001. 34—1010(b). 34—1010(e). Compare 34—1002(b) 1005(b). describing burdens, quoted description contained dissenting come: 'Judge Kinneary describes, below, legal obstacles would-be after fulfilled: "First, elect committee consisting committees Ohio. (Ohio Rev.Code 3517.02—3517.04.) Second, 3505.10.) Section 3513.19.1, Rev.Code, prohibits delegate committeeman member twelve hundred another willing serve delegates. Third, file elector. 3513.05.) term 'qualified electors' adequately Revised (§ 3501.01(H)), section 3513.19), elector who, (1) or, (2) never before. plaintiffs regular would, necessity, out moninating party." 25 n. Douglas, while joining Court, giving emphasis values involved. 35, 12. Harlan concurring judgment, explaining why rested 'entirely proposition protected against infringement Due Process Amendment.' 41, 16. Contrast, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 18:624(A) (1969); N.Y.Election Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 17, 138(6) (1964). R.I.Gen.Laws 17—16—8 (1969). Law 138(2) Cal.Elections 6830(c) (1961); Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 49—7—1(4) (Supp.1967). See Fortson Morris, 385 231, 87 446, 330. kept off 24. 23 As result, bodies now presumably acquired 24 'run-off' event receives original 34—1513(a). route realistically unorthodox 'radical' views valid light history. Time parties, local, state, levels, have, retaining labels, changed ideological direction because influence leadership views. 26 appellant assume, however, without deciding, assert 34—1004. 47 10, 19, (Harlan, J., result).

Category: 1