Document: 440 U.S. 173 99 S.Ct. 983 59 L.Ed.2d 230 ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Appellant,v.SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY et al. No. 77-1248. Argued Nov. 6, 1978. Decided Feb. 22, 1979. Syllabus Under the Illinois Election Code, new political parties and independent candidates must obtain signatures of 25,000 qualified voters in order to appear on ballot statewide elections. However, minimum number required elections for offices subdivisions State is 5% persons who voted at previous election such offices. Application these provisions a special mayoral Chicago produced result that party or candidate needed substantially more than would be access election. In actions by appellees, an candidate, two parties, certain challenging this discrepancy equal protection grounds, District Court enjoined enforcement provision insofar as it mandated signatures, Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. This Court's summary affirmance Jackson v. Ogilvie, 403 925, 91 2247, 29 705, decision 325 F.Supp. 864, upholding Illinois' signature requirement not dispositive question presented here. The precedential effect can extend no further "the precise issues necessarily decided those actions," Mandel Bradley, 432 173, 176, 97 2238, 2240, 53 199. contrast case, challenge involved only between less stringent requirements established parties. issue here was referred Court, mentioned passing jurisdictional statement subsequently filed with Court. Thus, adequately to, by, its affirmance. Pp. 180-183. 2. requires violates Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 183-187. (a) When fundamental rights freedom associate right cast votes effectively are stake, establish regulation necessary serve compelling interest. 184-185. (b) "[E]ven when pursuing legitimate interest, may choose means unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty," Kusper Pontikes, 414 51, 59, 94 303, 308, 38 260, States adopt least drastic achieve their ends. particularly important where restrictions involved. Since has determined smaller larger unit serves interest regulating ballot, seeking clearly restrictive achieving same objective. Appellant Board Elections advanced reason, much one, why needs 185-186. (c) Prior invalidation rules regarding geographic distribution tied both city state solely population standard. while explain anomaly here, does justify it. Historical accident, without more, cannot constitute 186-187. 3. properly dismissed moot appellant's claim Commissioners lacked authority conclude settlement agreement respect unresolved whether coupled filing deadline impermissibly burdened First Amendment rights. evidence creating reasonable expectation will repeat purportedly unauthorized subsequent 187-188. 566 F.2d 586, Michael L. Levinson, Springfield, Ill., appellant. Jeffrey D. Colman, Chicago, Ronald Reosti, Detroit, Mich., appellees. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion 1 elections.1 different standard applies State. particular subdivision.2 application incongruous gain similarly situated office.3 before us 2 * January 1977, City Council ordered held June 7, fill vacancy created death Mayor Richard J. Daley. Pursuant order, (Chicago Board) issued calendar listed dates applicable Independent had 35,947 valid February 19, were file petitions 63,373 April 4.4 Subsequently, (State agreed purposes bring into conformity independents extended 4, reduced 35,947. 3 Because they received last election, Socialist Workers Party United Labor defined statute. See n. 1, supra. Along Gerald Rose, unaffiliated any party, therefore subject deadlines specified calendar. On 24, supported brought action against enjoin parties.5 One week later, Party, four sued Board, candidates. intervened defendant pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2403, consolidated cases trial. 4 Plaintiff-appellees contended trial violated Clause. They argued unconstitutionally burdensome context because short time collection notice deadline. Board's primary response 864 (N.D.Ill.), summarily aff'd 705 (1971), requirement, foreclosed constitutional case.6 5 March 14, addressed neither circumstances nor disparity Bd. Comm'rs, 433 11, 16-17, 19. merits appellees' challenge, court found 6 "[no] rational reason petition identical satisfy interests restricting elections, yet fail do lesser unit. Lendall Jernigan, 424 951 (E.D.Ark.1977). Any greater said accomplishing state's goals, unduly impinge [on] independents, adherents." Id., 20 (footnote omitted). 7 Accordingly, permanently also declined dismiss rights, but postponed pending submission additional selection date. 8 17, appellees concluded issues. incorporated entered day which provided "solely applied Special Mayoral 1977," 20,000 18. App. 74. denied motion vacate orders. 9 appealed from 14 17 order. per curiam rendered six months after Seventh Circuit adopted 587 (1977). Also, contention prior approval. so ruling, noted long passed, "capable repetition, evading review," 588, quoting DeFunis Odegaard, 416 312, 318-319, 1704, 1706-1707, 40 164 (1974). 10 We probable jurisdiction, 435 994, 98 1644, 56 82 (1978), we now affirm. II 11 argues did below, supra, analyzing contention, note outset affirmances have considerably value merits. Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 671, 1347, 1359, 39 662 As Chief BURGER observed Fusari Steinberg, 419 379, 392, 95 533, 541, 42 521 (1975) (concurring opinion), "upon fuller consideration under plenary review, hesitated discard rule line established." Usery Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 96 2882, 2891, 49 752 (1976). 12 Moreover, agree conclusion govern currently us. Reverend Jesse Jackson, attacked impermissible burden exercise He well A three-judge rejected claims, finding burdens imposed roughly equivalent. Appellees mount challenge. attack lines drawn Rather, rests discrimination 13 urges, however, even though explicitly mention raised memorandum supporting course arguing law discriminated candidates, stated: "It remembered difficult party. Yet whole throughout entire officers, (Section 10-2), single office almost 60,000 signatures. invidious one Chicago." Memorandum Law, Juris. Statement Ogilvie,, O.T.1970, 70-1341, p. B-23.7 15 view ultimate decision, appellant contends, resolved 16 framed "whether [the signature] operates discriminate plaintiff depriving him granted parties." F.Supp., 868. posed similar terms. pp. 14-15. Although alluded State's memorandum, id., 15, separate appendix, B-21—B-24, point directly address omission disposes argument. stated 140 (1977), farther actions." disposition affirms judgment ibid., U.S., 391-392, S.Ct., 540-541 (BURGER, C. J., concurring), read our essential sustain judgment. 2891; McCarthy Philadelphia Civil Service Comm'n, 645, 646, 1154, 47 366 (1976) (per ). Questions "merely lurk record," Webster Fall, 266 507, 511, 45 148, 149, 69 L.Ed. 411 (1925), resolved, resolution them inferred. Assuming advancing see III 18 determining violate Clause, examine character classification question, importance individual asserted support classification. Memorial Hospital Maricopa County, 250, 253-254, 1076, 1079-1080, 306 (1974); Dunn Blumstein, 405 330, 335, 92 995, 999, 31 274 (1972); Kramer Union School Dist., 395 621, 626, 89 1886, 1889, 23 583 (1969); Williams Rhodes, 393 23, 30, 5, 10, 21 24 (1968). 19 Code incorporate For setting minimum-signature requirements, distinguishes each, voters. approximately 718,937 eligible sign nominating 1977,8 secure over 10,000 pool 4.5 million signatures.9 That distinction undoubtedly some resolve Restrictions distinct individuals advancement beliefs, voters, regardless persuasion, effectively." 10. recognized fundamental, 30-31, diminished practical if kept off ballot. Access implicate vote absent recourse referendums, "voters assert preferences through both." Lubin Panish, 709, 716, 1315, 1320, 702 By limiting choices available impairs voters' ability express preferences. And reasons too self-evident warrant amplification often reiterated voting most significance structure. Wesberry Sanders, 376 84 526, 534, 481 (1964); Reynolds Sims, 377 555, 1362, 1378, 506 336, 999. vital American Texas White, 767, 780-781, 1296, 1305-1306, 744 Storer Brown, 724, 736, 1274, 1282, 714 31, To sure, previously acknowledged 715, 1319, observed: 22 "A procedure inviting permitting every citizen present himself measuring seriousness candidate's desire motivation make voter size hence tend impede electoral process. . testing given candidacy open debate; ballots limited serious prospects public not." Similarly, Bullock Carter, 134, 145, 849, 857, (1972) omitted), expressed concern States' need assure winner "is choice majority, strong plurality, voting, expense runoff elections." Consequently, upheld statutes require preliminary showing "significant modicum support" Jenness Fortson, 431, 442, 1970, 1976, 554 (1971); see, e. g., opinions emphasized "even 58-59, 260 (1973), 1320; 31-33, 10-11. screening out frivolous considered light significant role third played development Nation. Abolitionists, Progressives, Populists undeniably influence, always success. records demonstrate, campaign disseminating ideas attaining office. A. Bickel, Reform Continuity 79-80 W. Binkley, Political Parties 181-205 (3d ed. 1959); H. Penniman, Sait's 223-239 (5th 1952). Overbroad jeopardize form expression. 25 plainly protecting objectives. Legislature avoiding overloaded served 25,000-signature requirement. Chicago. At oral argument, explained originally reflected approach subdivisions. Tr. Oral Arg. 35-37. Not meet standards pertaining distribution. comparison, flat percentage Moore 394 814, 1493, (1969), struck down grounds include 200 50 counties. Following Moore, invalidated amended statute 13,000 party's could come county. Communist Elections, 518 517, cert. denied, 423 986, 394, 46 303 (1975). noted, constraints standard, giving rise 26 account anomaly, still suggested continuation. hold unconstitutional IV 27 finally challenges Appeals' appeal consent. view, erred placing within exception mootness doctrine review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. ICC, 219 498, 515, 279, 283, 55 310 (1911). Weinstein Bradford, 147, 347, 349, 350 (1975), elaborated exception, holding case when: "(1) challenged duration fully litigated cessation expiration, (2) there complaining subjected again." 30 first branch test satisfied Appellant's conclusory assertions capable repetition sufficient test, since contend ever attempted litigation entry policy continue, cf. New York Telephone 434 159, 165 364, 368, 54 consistent pattern behavior, SEC Sloan, 436 103, 109-110, 1702, 1707, 148 (1978). patently matter statutory prescription, other decisions relies, 737 8, 1282; 816, 1494. find moot. 32 It ordered. 33 THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs 34 BLACKMUN, concurring. 35 I join strict-scrutiny cases, add comments record purposefully, perhaps somewhat belatedly, my unrelieved discomfort what seems continuing tendency use tests easy phrases "compelling [state] interest" "least [or restrictive] means." See, ante, 184, 185, 186. never been able appreciate just is. If "convincingly controlling," "incapable being overcome" upon balancing process, then, course, merely announces inevitable result, all. And, me, means" slippery slope signal chosen reach. judge unimaginative indeed he up something little "drastic" "restrictive" situation, thereby enable strike legislation down. reminiscent indulgence, few decades ago, substantive due process economic area nullification. 36 feel, therefore, felt, really very helpful analysis. convenient oriented, endeavor disassociate myself them. Apart use, reaches correct one. reservations opinion. 37 STEVENS, concurring part Placing names adds cost conducting tends confuse Nonetheless, am sure evidences violation impartially implicated discriminates, example, Socialists Republicans Catholics Protestants. But prescribing qualifications Rather deciding simply imposing interference rest predicate. legislative remnant support. either product malfunction by-product seeante, 190-191 (REHNQUIST, judgment). event, believe deprived liberty "due lawmaking" requires. Cf. Delaware Tribal Business Committee Weeks, 430 73, 98, 911, 51 (STEVENS, dissenting). concur Parts I, II, 41 REHNQUIST, opinion: employs elaborate analysis simple suffice. sense, intimately familiar why. 43 1968, coherent set obtaining place county subdivision general Requirements put emphasis geographical balance: obtained each counties get fewer Cook restrictions. scheme best vindicated "protect[ing] integrity processes fraudulent candidacies." (1972). County Illinois, all asked interested produce minimal 44 1969, populations. (1969). led statute, legislature 13,000-signature limit county, likewise denial protection. 517 (C.A.7), courts having knocked key panels otherwise symmetrical mosaic, surprising sense made left. Given history, subscribe Brother STEVENS' alternative characterization problem "a process." enacted comprehensive once attorneys placed position defend truncated version original enactment. All explains disparate treatment candidates; rational-basis scarcely effort engaging pretends dealing legislature, bears relationship Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 46, 10-2 (Supp.1978): which, polled Governor Governor, hereby declared 'established party' district thereof. congressional district, township, school park municipality State, municipality, be, officers respective territorial meaning Article municipality." met requirements. Individuals desiring that, inter alia, "signed voters." proviso section requiring "that counted toward total signatures." (Supp.1978). files completed becomes entitled next ensuing list name party." Ibid. With 10-3 (Supp.1978) provides pertinent part: "Nomination (not party), filled large nomination papers signed aggregate State; Provided, reveal enforces proviso. Section provides: "If shall formed equaling preceding area." 10-3: "Nominations division, 5%, 8% (or minimum, whichever greater) persons, Candidates populous 20. arose Boards used figures 1975, computing November 2, calculations language Compare (Supp.1978), 10-2. 10-6 64 days 4. reflect caused case. responsible accepting preparing §§ 7-60, 7-62, "charge make[s] general, special, local, municipal, others description thereof, time." 6-26 exercises "general supervision administration registration laws State." 1A-1 (Supp.1978); Ill.Const., Art. 3, 5. afforded opportunity participate proceedings, appeared argument plaintiff-appellees' permanent injunction. After injunction, moved many Board. Only defending agreement, infra, 180, appears appellee. Subsequent references "appellees" opinion, plaintiff-appellees. Rose argue refers purported fact, argue, disparity. 10-3. Commissioners, Municipal Results (Apr. 1975). U. S. Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Statistical Abstract 505

Category: 1