Document: 112 S.Ct. 2059 504 U.S. 428 119 L.Ed.2d 245 Alan B. BURDICK, Petitionerv.Morris TAKUSHI, Director of Elections Hawaii, et al. No. 91-535. Argued March 24, 1992. Decided June 8, Syllabus Petitioner, a registered Honolulu voter, filed suit against respondent state officials, claiming that Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting violated his rights expression and association under the First Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court ultimately granted motion for summary judgment injunctive relief, but Appeals reversed, holding prohibition, taken as part State's comprehensive election scheme, does not impermissibly burden right to vote. Held: unreasonably infringe upon its citizens' Pp. 432-442. (a) Petitioner assumes erroneously law imposes any vote must be subject strict scrutiny. This Court's cases have applied more flexible standard: A court considering challenge weigh character magnitude asserted injury Amendment plaintiff seeks vindicate precise interests put forward by State justification imposed rule, taking into consideration extent which those make it necessary plaintiff's rights. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 780, 788-789, 103 1564, 1569-1570, 75 547. Under this standard, regulation narrowly drawn advance interest compelling importance only when subjects voters' "severe" restrictions. Norman Reed, 502 ----, 698, 705, 116 711. If "reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions" rights, important regulatory are generally sufficient justify Anderson, supra, U.S., at 788, S.Ct., 1570. 432-434. (b) very limited associate politically through candidates their choice placed ballot. Because laws provide easy access primary ballot until cut-off date filing nominating petitions, two months before primary, is borne who fail identify candidate shortly primary. An in making late rather than an early decision entitled little weight. Cf. Storer Brown, 415 724, 736, 94 1274, 39 714. 434-439. (c) avoiding possibility unrestrained factionalism general guarding "party raiding" during primaries legitimate outweigh ban voters. 439-440. (d) Indeed, foregoing analysis leads conclusion where, here, pass constitutional muster imposing reasonable burdens will presumptively valid, since one's light normally counterbalanced supporting scheme. 441-442. 937 F.2d (CA9 1991), affirmed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, dissenting opinion, BLACKMUN STEVENS, Arthur N. Eisenberg, petitioner. Steven S. Michaels, respondents. Justice WHITE Court. 1 issue case whether infringes contends Constitution requires Hawaii casting, tabulation, publication votes. Ninth Circuit disagreed, 415, 422 (1991). We affirm. 2 * voter city County Honolulu. In 1986, one papers run seat representing petitioner's district House Representatives. wrote officials inquiring about policy received copy letter issued Attorney General's Office stating made no provision voting. App. 38-39, 49. 3 then lawsuit, he wished elections person had future other persons whose names were might appear id., 32-33. United States concluded entered preliminary injunction ordering respondents casting tallying votes November 1986 election. Pet. Cert. 67a-77a. denied stay pending appeal. 76-107. 4 stay, 109, vacated reasoning federal question raised petitioner was premature because "neither plain language statutes nor definitive judicial interpretation establishes legislature has enacted voting." Burdick Takushi, 846 587, 588 1988). Accordingly, ordered abstain, see Railroad Comm'n Tex. Pullman Co., 312 496, 61 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941), courts determined permitted voting.1 5 On remand, certified following three questions Supreme Hawaii: 6 "(1) Does require permit count publish votes? 7 "(2) Do 8 "(3) permit, require, allow voters cast votes?" 56a-57a. 9 high answered "No" all questions, barred these measures consistent with Constitution. 70 Haw. 498, 776 P.2d 824 (1989). renewed 737 F.Supp. 582 (Haw.1990). 10 again required votes: 11 "Although places some restrictions [petitioner's] association, justified ease ballots, alternatives available [petitioner] expressing political beliefs, broad powers regulate elections, specific advanced State." F.2d, 421.2 12 so ruling, expressly declined follow earlier regarding Fourth Circuit. See ibid., citing Dixon Maryland Administrative Bd. Election Laws, 878 (CA4 1989). certiorari resolve disagreement question. 711 II 13 proceeds from erroneous assumption Our do hold. 14 It beyond cavil "voting most fundamental significance our structure." Illinois Socialist Workers Party, 440 173, 184, 99 983, 990, 59 230 (1979). follow, however, manner purposes absolute. Munro 479 189, 193, 107 533, 536, 93 499 (1986). provides may prescribe "[t]he Times, Places Manner Senators Representatives," Art. I, § 4, cl. 1, therefore recognized retain power own elections. Sugarman Dougall, 413 634, 647, 2842, 2850, 37 853 (1973); Tashjian Republican Party Connecticut, 208, 217, 544, 550, 514 Common sense, well law, compels government play active role structuring elections; "as practical matter, there substantial if they fair honest sort order, chaos, accompany democratic processes." 730, 1279, 714 (1974). 15 invariably impose individual Each code, "whether governs registration qualifications voters, selection eligibility candidates, or process itself, inevitably affects—at least degree—the individual's others ends." 547 (1983). Consequently, every scrutiny tailored interest, suggests, would tie hands seeking assure operated equitably efficiently. Brief 32-37. mere fact system "creates barriers . tending limit field choose itself compel close scrutiny." Bullock Carter, 405 134, 143, 92 849, 856, 31 (1972); 1569-1570; McDonald Board Comm'nrs Chicago, 394 802, 89 1404, 22 739 (1969). 16 Instead, full agreed 808, 817, 1580, 1584-1585 (Rehnquist, dissenting), standard applies. "the protected Amendments vindicate" justifications rule," rights." Id., 789, 1570; Tashjian, 213-214, 547-548. 17 rigorousness inquiry propriety depends challenged Thus, we subjected restrictions, "narrowly importance." (1992). But justify" also n. 9, 9. apply ballots. A. 18 There doubt laws, like regulations, impact vote, can hardly said here unconstitutionally party independent interfere petitioners understandably regulates 19 To obtain position ballot, participate open "in vote." 223, 11, 553, 11. Haw.Rev.Stat. 12-31 (1985). mechanisms voter's candidate-of-choice 20 First, petition 150 days group signatures percent voters.3 11-62 (Supp.1991). Then, 60 file certifying, among things, qualify office sought members seek represent contain specified number voters: 25 statewide office; legislative county races. §§ 12-2.5 12-7 (1985 Supp.1991). winner each advances forms around candidacy single else runs ticket, elected win place 21 second method established route.4 Established parties qualified consecutive percentage preceding avoid petitions years. 11-61 Democratic, Republican, Libertarian Parties currently meet criteria parties. Like new contenders Supp.1991).5 third mechanism designated nonpartisan Nonpartisans simply containing signatures, depending sought, 12-3 12-7. election, receive nominate partisan candidate, whichever lower. Hustace Doi, 282, 289-290, 915, 920 (1978). During years action, 26 nonpartisans obtained slots Respondent 8. 23 Although makes outlined above cutoff freedom gave weight supporters status." 1282.6 Rosario Rockefeller, 410 752, 757, 1245, 1249-1250, 36 (1973). think same applies conclude one. "To otherwise sacrifice stability State, profound consequences entire citizenry, merely particular having instantaneous ballot." Storer, 1282.7 24 characterized case, submits deprives him opportunity meaningful conditions electoral participation waiver remain free espousing positions support, discriminates based content message convey 19. At bottom, claims "protest vote" Donald Duck, Tr. Oral Arg. 5, impediment "right" unconstitutional. Petitioner's argument flawed premises. minimized distinguishable cases, lend themselves neat separation." 856.8 Second, function "to winnow out finally reject chosen candidates," 735, 1281, means giving vent "short-range goals, pique, personal quarrel[s]." Ibid. Attributing generalized expressive undermine ability operate fairly 1279. repeatedly upheld reasonable, neutral regulations effect channeling activity polls. Munro, 199, 539-540. offers persuasive reason depart precedents. Reasonable espouse support; them act timely fashion wish express views booth. And nothing flat 27 appropriate evaluating claim set forth Anderson. Applying that, adequate afforded choices B 28 turn next already slight, need establish tip scales direction. Here, waiting eleventh hour preferred candidate. 29 "avoid[ing] election," 196, 538, November. "an integral process," within reserve major struggles [and] forum continuing intraparty feuds." Ibid.; 537-538, averting divisive sore-loser candidacies. further promotes two-stage, primary-general winnowing 1281-1282, permitting unopposed victors certain holders. 12-41, 12-42 focuses attention contested races possible, absent ban. 30 asserts stage guard raiding." 219, 551. raiding defined organized switching blocs another order manipulate outcome party's election." 1570, suggests conducts cognizable interest. disagree. While ticket "member[s] party," 12-3(a)(7) (1985), prohibits "nomination both candidate." 12-3(c). could easily circumvented mounting campaign time never intended frustrated loser failed get preventing sorts maneuvers, way accomplishing goal.9 voters.10 III 32 us laws—a 33 such situations, objection amounts insistence record, count, protests presented efforts actively system. available, voice dissension process; discern basis requiring finance recording constitutionally valid laws.11 34 "No precious country which, good citizens, live." Wesberry Sanders, 376 17, 84 526, 534-535, 481 (1964). necessarily structured maintain integrity voting, considered scheme access, unconstitutional 35 ordered. whom join, dissenting. enact total majority holds can, finding rules serious limitations adopts presumption prohibitions permissible standards. I dissent disagree presumption, majority's constitutional. 38 record demonstrates significant choice. triggered did ran representative district. write name preferred, dilemma recurring, frequent phenomenon circumstance party, Democratic predominant. critical understand isolated example restriction candidates. cites mitigating compound systemwide. often unopposed, especially offices involved Reply 2-3, 2. comparable figures 1984 1982 37.5 percent. Large numbers blank ballots uncontested races, is, leave listed. 1990, voted Senate Cause/Hawaii, Amicus Curiae 15-16. Twenty-nine house 16. Even 16-17. 40 Given many dissatisfied them, hard given option. thus prevents participating manner. 41 evidence belies suggestion official contrary, whole third-party ignores difficulty deadline gathering signatures: (5 months) Meeting considerable organization condition difficult small meet. 10-11, 4. 42 unsuccessful completed time, affiliated independent. requirements onerous (15 primary), non-partisan presents offices. Hence, wishes forgo race. Since offices, terms wants forfeits rule finds curative, disincentive select faces similar third-party's 43 dominance magnifies dispositive effect, between doing what explains why few secure enough As notes, eight succeeded advancing past That less per year average Hawaii. 44 approval ironic democracies foreign countries strive emerge era sham ruling severe haunting similarity tendency exact penalties anything dominant 45 Aside constraints related limits way. Writein serve safety instances where late-developing arises information disclosed become disenchanted too come forcing either longer Write-in quandary, allowing switch support address problem late-breaking developments (unsuitable recalled), preserve 46 With background, legal principles control case. outset, agree first premise analysis. stake implicated. His confers citizens protest report persuasive. points out, purpose counting, elect public expression. 47 careful statement gives test determine been constricted. phrases it, "weigh 'the vindicate' rule,' rights.' " Ante, 434, quoting 547-548, submit selecting range 48 starting point, useful remember 1800's, state-prepared known Australian system, introduced 1888. L.E. Fredman, Ballot: Story American Reform ix (1968). Prior this, prepared used preprinted tickets offered state-imposed individuals always 49 State-prepared progressive reform reduce fraudulent practices. pre-printed distinctive colors sold 22. disadvantage constrict recognition problem, several See, example, Sanner Patton, 155 Ill. 562-564, N.E. 290, 292-293 (1895) ("[I]f construction contended appellee [prohibiting voting] correct one, deprived suffrage; exercising choice; away left worthy suffrage—the boasted becomes delusion"); Patterson Hanley, 136 Cal. 265, 270, 68 P. 821, 823 (1902) ("Under form experience allowed—and seems allowed—the privilege writing proper place"); Oughton Black, 212 Pa. 6-7, 346, 348 (1905) ("Unless enable satisfied appearing up choice, equal, able way"). 50 recognized, cannot without ban, conjunction deprive consequence, Reynolds Sims, 377 555, 1362, 1378, 506 (1964) ("The freely essence society, strike heart government"). For affected bans, infringement total. longshots difference; exists regardless likelihood successful. Labor Rhodes, 290 987 (S.D.Ohio), ("A permits effectively exercise franchise. use should dependent candidate's chance success"), aff'd pt., modified sub nom., Williams 393 23, 51 Based reasoning, accept bans state's circular, fails take account consider availability lack thereof, factor determining Jenness Fortson, 403 431, 438, 91 1970, 1974, 554 (1971); 7, 1282, moreover, excuse defend view, implications defective remedy defect. needs itself. 52 inevitable liberality determinant ban; not, though, automatic forbidding my putting served presumed absence proffered State. derives (1983), this. 53 petitioner, assess them. specify level because, puzzling, degree prohibition. turn. 54 best potential acceptance, preserving sore candidacies acknowledged factionalism. eliminating "adequate justification" 439. initial complete respect overinclusive addressing problem; bars undesirable desires prevent candidacies, implement narrow aimed problem. 55 enforcing officeholders go states "[t]his ban." sense. counsel oral argument, "[t]o abolished circumstances, occasion 14. anything, cuts dispositive. 56 justifies raiding. Petitioners argue alleged suspect created primaries. agree. raise concern risk feature chosen. circumventing party. Again, mount requirements, disqualified 57 promoting informed "flushing 44. backwards. conduct visible campaigns me likely trouble informed. cut 58 combating fraud nomination requirements. explain how today's polling places. sure ineligible elected, pointed approximately declaration verify eligible hold 13. sum, impairment grant relief. appeal pending, became concerned enter September 1988 challenging unavailability Cayetano, Civil 99-0365. Coincidentally, day decided stemming original complaint. actions subsequently consolidated 142. panel 1991. 927 469. 28, 1991, rehearing en banc, withdrew version appears 415. previously signature burdensome requirement. e.g., 708, (1992); Texas White, 767, 1296, 744 (1974); (1971). Jenness, rejected equal protection provided alternative concluding freeze status quo. 438. Ohio's presidential association. distinguishable, Ohio explained after date. 786, 1568-1569. fills void mechanism. California refused recognize disaffiliated complains opt foreclosed choices. Post, 444. true primaries; universe running slates. much requirement interested enroll member prior Texas, 1308 ("[T]he essential [petition] confine course process"). suggesting burdened clear decisions option remedy. 799, 26, 1575, 26; Lubin Panish, 709, 719, 1315, 1321, 702 participated so-called cases. E.g., 783, 1567. supports fraud, "fostering educated expressions popular will." 796, 1572-1573. purports restricted, post, 445-446, implies analyzing minimal scrutiny, 448, actually employs evident invocation quite rigid tailoring instance, argues adopt drastic screen post-election disqualification 450. limiting complied prototypical while affects eminently reasonable. 1575. dissent's unqualified driven restraint wrong. 433-434. suggest do; read discourage provisions.

Category: 1