Source: https://openjurist.org/415/us/724
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:54:34+00:00

Document:
Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., et al. Laurence H. FROMMHAGEN, Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., et al.
Rehearing Denied May 28, 1974.
1. Section 6830(d) (Supp.1974) is not unconstitutional, and appellants Storer and Frommhagen (who were affiliated with a qualified party no more than six months before the primary) were properly barred from the ballot as a result of its application. Pp. 728—737.
(a) The provision reflects a general state policy aimed at maintaining the integrity of the various routes to the ballot, and involves no discrimination against independents. Though an independent candidate must be clear of party affiliations for a year before the primary, a party candidate under § 6490 (Supp.1974) of the Code must not have been registered with another party for a year before he files his declaration, which must be done not less than 83 days and not more than 113 days prior to the primary. Pp. 733—734.
(b) The provision protects the direct primary process, which is an integral part of the entire election process by refusing to recognize independent candidates who do not make early plans to leave a party and take the alternative course to the ballot; works against independent candidacies prompted by short-range political goals, pique or personal quarrel; is a substantial barrier to a party fielding an 'independent' candidate to capture and bleed off votes in the general election that might well go to another party; and thus furthers the State's compelling interest in the stability of its political system, outweighing the interest the candidate and his supporters may have in making a late rather than an early decision to seek independent ballot status. Pp. 734—735.
2. Further proceedings should be had in the District Court to permit additional findings concerning the extent of the burden imposed on independent candidates for President and Vice President under California law, particularly with respect to whether § 6831 (1961) and § 6833 (Supp.1974) place an unconstitutional restriction on access by appellants Hall and Tyner to the ballot. Pp. 738—746.
(a) It should be determined whether the available pool of possible signers of the nominating papers is so diminished by the disqualification of those who voted in the primary that the 5% provision, which as applied here apparently imposes a 325,000-signature requirement, to be satisfied in 24 days, is unduly onerous. Pp. 739—740.
(b) While the District Court apparently took the view that California law disqualified anyone who voted in the primary from signing an independent's petition, whether or not the vote was confined to nonpartisan matters, it would be difficult on the record before this Court to ascertain any rational ground, let alone a compelling interest, for disqualifying nonpartisan primary voters. Pp. 741—742.
(c) Once the District Court ascertains the number of signatures required in the 24-day period, along with the total pool from which they may be drawn, the court then, in determining whether in the context of California politics a reasonably diligent independent candidate could be expected to satisfy the signature requirements or will only rarely succeed in securing ballot placement, should consider not only past experience, but also the relationship between the showing of support through a petition requirement and the percentage of the vote the State can reasonably expect of a candidate who achieves ballot status in the general election. Pp. 742—746.
The California Elections Code forbids ballot position to an independent candidate for elective public office if he voted in the immediately preceding primary, § 6830(c) (Supp.1974),1 or if he had a registered affiliation with a qualified political party at any time within one year prior to the immediately preceding primary election. § 6830(d) (Supp.1974). The independent candidate must also file nomination papers signed by voters not less in number than 5% nor more than 6% of the entire vote cast in the preceding general election in the area for which the candidate seeks to run. § 6831 (1961). All of these signatures must be obtained during a 24-day period following the primary and ending 60 days prior to the general election, § 6833 (Supp.1974), and none of the signatures may be gathered from persons who vote at the primary election. § 6830(c) (Supp.1974). The constitutionality of these provisions is challenged here as infringing on rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and as adding qualifications for the office of United States Congressman, contrary to Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution.
Prior to the 1972 elections, appellants Storer, Frommhagen, Hall, and Tyner, along with certain of their supporters, filed their actions2 to have the above sections of the Elections Code declared unconstitutional and their enforcement enjoined. Storer and Frommhagen each sought ballot status as an independent candidate for Congressman for his district.3 Both complained about the party disaffiliation requirement of § 6830(d) (Supp.1974) and asserted that the combined effects of the provisions were unconstitutional burdens on their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Hall and Tyner claimed the right to ballot position as independent candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. They were members of the Communist Party but that party had not qualified for ballot position in California. They, too, complained of the combined effect of the indicated sections of the Election Code on their ability to achieve ballot position.
'There is surely an important state interest in requiring some preliminary showing of a significant modicum of support before printing the name of a political organization's candidate on the ballot—the interest, if no other, in avoiding confusion, deception, and even frustration of the democratic process at the general election.' Id., at 442, 91 S.Ct., at 1976.
After long experience, California came to the direct party primary as a desirable way of nominating candidates for public office. It has also carefully determined which public offices will be subject to partisan primaries and those that call for nonpartisan elections.4 Moreover, after long experience with permitting candidates to run in the primaries of more than one party, California forbade the cross-filing practice in 1959.5 A candidate in one party primary may not now run in that of another; if he loses in the primary, he may not run as an independent; and he must not have been associated with another political party for a year prior to the primary. See §§ 6401, 6611. The direct party primary in California is not merely an exercise or warm-up for the general election but an integral part of the entire election process,6 the initial stage in a two-stage process by which the people choose their public officers. If functions to winnow out and finally reject all but the chosen candidates. The State's general policy is to have contending forces within the party employ the primary campaign and primary election to finally settle their differences. The general election ballot is reserved for major struggles; it is not a forum for continuing intraparty feuds. The provision against defeated primary candidates running as independents effectuates this aim, the visible result being to prevent the losers from continuing the struggle and to limit the names on the ballot to those who have won the primaries and those independents who have properly qualified. The people, it is hoped, are presented with understandable choices and the winner in the general election with sufficient support to govern effectively.
We come to different conclusions with respect to Hall and Tyner.9 As to these two men we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings to determine whether the California election laws place an unconstitutional burden on their access to the ballot.
Because further proceedings are required, we must resolve certain issues that are in dispute in order that the ground rules for the additional fact-finding in the District Court will more clearly appear. First, we have no doubt about the validity of disqualifying from signing an independent candidate's petition all those registered voters who voted a partisan ballot in the primary, although they did not vote for the office sought by the independent. We have considered this matter at greater length in American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 785—786, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1308, 39 L.Ed.2d 744, and we merely repeat here that a State may confine each voter to one vote in one primary election, and that to maintain the integrity of the nominating process the State is warranted in limiting the voter to participating in but one of the two alternative procedures, the partisan or the nonpartisan, for nominating candidates for the general election ballot.
Appellees insist, however, that the signature requirements for independent candidates are of no consequence because California has provided a valid way for new political parties to qualify for ballot position, an alternative that Hall could have pursued, but did not. Under § 6430, new political parties can be recognized and qualify their candidate for ballot position if 135 days before a primary election it appears that voters equal in number to at least 1% of the entire vote of the State at the last preceding gubernatorial election have declared to the county clerks their intention to affiliate with the new party, or if, by the same time, the new party files a petition with signatures equal in number to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote.15 It is argued that the 1% registration requirement is feasible, has recently been resorted to successfully by two new political parties now qualified for the California ballot, and goes as far as California constitutionally must go in providing an alternative to the direct party primary of the major parties.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment in No. 72—812 insofar as it refused relief to Hall and Tyner and remand the case in this respect to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment in No. 72 812 and No. 72—6050 is affirmed.
'governmental action may withstand constitutional scrutiny only upon a clear showing that the burden imposed is necessary to protect a compelling and substantial governmental interest. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. (618, 634, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1331, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969)); United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 582—583, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 1216, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406—409, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1795, 1797, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). And once it be determined that a burden has been placed upon a constitutional right, the onus of demonstrating that no less intrusive means will adequately protect compelling state interests is upon the party seeking to justify the burden. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 526, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1341, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (1958).' Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 238, 91 S.Ct. 260, 321, 27 L.Ed.2d 272 (1970) (separate opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.
See also Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336—337, 92 S.Ct. 995, 999, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 1889, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, at 31, 89 S.Ct. 5, at 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24.
* The California statute absolutely denies ballot position to independent candidates who, at any time within 12 months prior to the immediately preceding primary election, were registered as affiliated with a qualified political party. Intertwined with Cal. Elections Code §§ 2500, 2501 (1961), which require primary elections to be held five months before the general election, § 6830(d) (Supp.1974) plainly places a significant burden upon independent candidacy—and therefore effectively burdens as well the rights of potential supporters and voters to associate for political purposes and to vote, see Williams v. Rhodes, supra, 393 U.S., at 30, 89 S.Ct., at 9 (1968); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 855, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972)—because potential independent candidates, currently affiliated with a recognized party, are required to take affirmative action toward candidacy fully 17 months before the general election. Thus, such candidates must make that decision at a time when, as a matter of the realities of our political system, they cannot know either who will be the nominees of the major parties, or what the significant election issues may be. That is an impossible burden to shoulder. We recognized in Williams v. Rhodes, supra, 393 U.S., at 33, 89 S.Ct., at 11, that 'the principal policies of the major parties change to some extent from year to year, and . . . the identity of the likely major party nominees may not be known until shortly before the election . . ..' Today, not even the casual observer of American politics can fail to realize that often a wholly unanticipated event will in only a matter of months dramatically alter political fortunes and influence the voters' assessment of vital issues. By requiring potential independent candidates to anticipate, and crystallize their political responses to, these changes and events 17 months prior to the general election, § 6830(d) (Supp.1974) clearly is out of step with 'the potential fluidity of American political life,' Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 439, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 1975, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), operating as it does to discourage independent candidacies and freeze the political status quo.
Naturally, the Constitution does not require the State to choose ineffective means to achieve its aims. The State must demonstrate, however, that the means it has chosen are 'necessary.' Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1331 (1969). See also American Party of Texas v. White, supra, 415 U.S., at 780—781, 94 S.Ct., at 1305.
I have searched in vain for even the slightest evidence in the records of these cases of any effort on the part of the State to demonstrate the absence of reasonably less burdensome means of achieving its objectives. This crucial failure cannot be remedied by the Court's conjecture that other means 'might sacrifice the political stability of the system of the State' (emphasis added). When state legislation burdens fundamental constitutional rights, as conceded here, we are not a liberty to speculate that the State might be able to demonstrate the absence of less burdensome means; the burden of affirmatively demonstrating this is upon the State. Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, 405 U.S. at 343, 92 S.Ct., at 1003; Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, 394 U.S., at 634, 89 S.Ct., at 1331; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406—409, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1795, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963).
Moreover, less drastic means—which would not require the State to give appellants 'instantaneous access to the ballot'—seem plainly available to achieve California's objectives. First, requiring party disaffiliation 12 months before the primary elections is unreasonable on its face. There is no evidence that splintering and factionalism of political parties will result unless disaffiliation is effected that far in advance of the primaries. To the contrary, whatever threat may exist to party stability is more likely to surface only shortly before the primary, when the identities of the potential field of candidates and issues become known. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S., at 33, 89 S.Ct., at 11. Thus, the State's interests would be adequately served and the rights of the appellants less burdened if the date when disaffiliation must be affected were set significantly closer to the primaries. Second, the requirement of party disaffiliation could be limited to those independent candidates who actually run in a party primary. Section 6830(d) (Supp.1974) sweeps far too broadly in its application to potential independent candidates who though registered as affiliated with a recognized party, do not run for the party's nomination. Such an independent candidate plainly poses no threat of utilizing the party machinery to run in the primary, and then declaring independent candidacy, thereby splitting the party.
'There is surely an important state interest in requiring some preliminary showing of a significant modicum of support before printing the name of a political organization's candidate on the ballot—the interest, if no other, in avoiding confusion, deception, and even frustration of the democratic process at the general election.' 403 U.S., at 442, 91 S.Ct., at 1976.
'A voter may sign a petition even though he has signed others, and a voter who has signed the petition of a nonparty candidate is free thereafter to participate in a party primary. The signer of a petition is not required to state that he intends to vote for that candidate at the election. A person who has previously voted in a party primary is fully eligible to sign a petition, and so, on the other hand, is a person who was not even registered at the time of the previous election. No signature on a nominating petition need be notarized.' Id., at 438—439, 91 S.Ct., at 1974 (footnotes omitted).
California seeks to justify its election laws by pointing to the same substantial interests we identified in Jenness, of insuring that candidates possess a modicum of support, and that voters are not confused by the length of the ballot. But in sharp contrast to the election laws we upheld in Jenness, California's statutory scheme greatly restricted the pool of registered voters from which appellants Hall and Tyner were permitted to draw signatures. The 5% requirement, in reality, forced them to secure the signatures of 9.5% of the voters permitted by law to sign nomination petitions. Moreover, unlike Georgia's six-month period for gathering signatures, the California election laws required appellants to meet that State's higher percentage requirement in only 25 days. Thus, even conceding the substantiality of its aims, the State has completely failed to demonstrate why means less drastic than its high percentage requirement and short circulation period—such as the statutory scheme enacted in Georgia—will not achieve its interests.
See Gaylord, History of the California Election Laws 59, contained in West's Ann.Elec. Code (1961), preceding §§ 1—11499.
From the official published voting statistics published by the California Secretary of State, it would appear that the total vote in the 1972 primaries, seemingly the total number of persons voting, was 6,460,220, while the total vote for partisan presidential candidates was 5,880,845. Thus all but approximately 579,000 voted for a partisan candidate in the presidential primary and it is likely that many of the 579,000 not voting for President cast a partisan ballot for other candidates. But assuming that they did not, the maximum addition to the pool available to Hall would be 579,000, probably a relatively small difference in terms of the total number of eligible signers. See Secretary of State, Statement of Vote, State of California, Consolidated Primary Election, June 6, 1972, pp. 3, 4—23.

References: v. 
 § 6490
 § 6831
 § 6833
 § 6830
 § 6830
 § 6831
 § 6833
 § 6830
 § 2
 § 6830
 v. 
 § 6430
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6830
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6830
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.