Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1698476.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:11:54+00:00

Document:
ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY; Arizona Green Party; James March; Kent Solberg; Steve Lackey, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Ken BENNETT, Secretary of State, Defendant–Appellee.
Before A. WALLACE TASHIMA, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges. David T. Hardy, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiffs–Appellants. Thomas C. Home, Attorney General of Arizona, Robert L. Ellman, Deputy Attorney General (argued), Michele L. Forney and Todd M. Allison, Assistant Attorneys General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant–Appellant.
Under Arizona law, there are two ways for a party to get its preferred candidate on the ballot.5 First, a “new political party” becomes “eligible for recognition” upon filing a petition with the Secretary of State signed by a number of qualified electors equal to one and one-third (11/313) percent “of the total votes cast for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–801(A). Recognition entitles a new political party to be “represented by an official party ballot at the primary election and accorded a ballot column at the succeeding general election” through at least “the next two regularly scheduled general elections for federal office immediately following recognition of the political party.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–801(B).
After these first two federal election cycles, a party may continue to be represented by an official party ballot during a primary election and accorded a ballot column in the succeeding general election (that is, the party is entitled to “continuing ballot access”) in one of two ways. First, a party is entitled to continuing ballot access if its candidate receives “not less than five per cent of the total votes cast for governor or presidential electors” at the “last preceding general election” for certain specified offices. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–804(A). Second, a party is entitled to continuing ballot access if, on certain dates prescribed by statute, the party “has registered electors in the party equal to at least two-thirds of one per cent of the total registered electors in such jurisdiction.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–804(B). A party that loses continuing ballot access may get it back the same way a new party would gain access to the ballot: it must submit another petition signed by a number of qualified electors equal to one and one-third (1) percent of the total votes cast for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–801(B).
“Restrictions on voting can burden equal protection rights as well as ‘interwoven strands of liberty’ protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments—namely, the ‘right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively.’ “ Dudurn, 640 F.3d at 1105–06 (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983) (some internal quotation marks omitted)).7 As the Supreme Court has recognized, these rights are generally guaranteed by ensuring that political parties, including those that are new to the political scene, are given the opportunity to place their candidate on the ballot. See Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184, 99 S.Ct. 983, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) (“The freedom to associate as a political party ․ has diminished practical value if the party can be kept off the ballot.”). Indeed, because “an election campaign is an effective platform for the expression of views on the issues of the day, and a candidate serves as a rallying-point for like-minded citizens,” Anderson, 460 U.S. at 788, “the right to vote is heavily burdened if that vote may be cast only for one of two parties at a time when other parties are clamoring for a place on the ballot.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968).
“At the same time,” however, “ ‘States retain the power to regulate their own elections.’ “ Dudum, 640 F.3d at 1106 (quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992)). “Common sense, as well as constitutional law, compels the conclusion that government must play an active role in structuring elections.” Id. at 1103 (quoting Burdick, 504 U.S at 433). The Constitution itself “provides that States may prescribe ‘the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.’ “ Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433 (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (brackets omitted)). And, “[t]o achieve these necessary objectives, States have enacted comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes.” Anderson, 460 U.S. at 788. Moreover, every law regulating elections, “whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects—at least to some degree—the individual's right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends.” Id.
Accordingly, “the severity of the burden the election law imposes on the plaintiff's rights dictates the level of scrutiny applied by the court.” Id. (quoting Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 (“[T]he rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.”). “An election regulation that imposes a severe burden is subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Cronin, 620 F.3d at 1217 (quoting brewer, 531 F.3d at 1035 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). By contrast, “[a] state may justify election regulations imposing a lesser burden by demonstrating the state has ‘important regulatory interests.’ “ Id. (quoting Brewer, 531 F.3d at 1035).
In cases “previously examining differing treatments of minor and major political parties,” we have held that, “in determining the nature and magnitude of the burden that the state's election procedures impose on the minor party, we must examine the entire scheme regulating ballot access.” Cronin, 620 F.3d at 1217 (quoting Libertarian Party of Wash. v. Munro, 31 F.3d 759, 761–62 (9th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).8 The relevant inquiry “is whether ‘reasonably diligent’ minor party candidates can normally gain a place on the ballot, or if instead they only rarely will succeed.” Munro, 31 F.3d at 762 (quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 742, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974)); see also Anderson, 460 U.S. at 787–88 (noting that the relevant inquiry in determining the constitutionality of election regulations is the ability of voters' preferred candidates to get on the ballot). Moreover, the party challenging the law bears “the initial burden of showing that [the state's] ballot access requirements seriously restrict the availability of political opportunity.” Munro, 31 F.3d at 762.
Plaintiffs have failed to make any such showing. Section 16–152(A)(5) does not directly inhibit the ability of any party to gain access to the ballot, nor does it articulate different criteria for major and minor parties who seek to get their candidates on the ballot. All new political parties (and parties that have lost continuing ballot access) are required to comply with the same criteria to get their candidate on the ballot. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–801. Moreover, all political parties, major and minor alike, are entitled to continuing ballot access if: (1) their candidates gamer at least five percent of the “total votes cast for governor or presidential electors” at the “last preceding general election” for certain specified offices; or, (2) they have “registered electors ․ equal to at least two-thirds of one percent of the total registered electors” in the relevant jurisdiction by a specified date. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–804.
In sum, by failing to adduce evidence that the Registration Form actually discourages or prevents voters from registering with minor parties, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their “initial burden of showing that [Arizona's] ballot access requirements seriously restrict the availability of political opportunity.” Munro, 31 F.3d at 762. At most, § 16–152(A)(5) imposes a de minimus burden on Plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Where, as here, a state election law imposes only a de minimus burden on a party's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the State “need demonstrate only that [the statute at issue] is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Cronin, 620 F.3d at 1218 (quoting Munro, 31 F.3d at 763 (internal quotation marks omitted)).10 In evaluating the constitutionality of such statutes, we may “look to any conceivable interest promoted by the challenged procedures, whether or not the state cited that interest in its briefs or in the district court.” Munro, 31 F.3d at 763; see also Dudum, 640 F.3d at 1116 n. 28 (noting that, in sustaining an election law that did not impose a severe burden on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997), “expressly relied on a state interest admittedly not advanced in its briefs, but mentioned during oral argument”). Furthermore, we need not determine whether the interests served by § 16–152(A)(5) can be better served by other means: as we recently concluded, “when a challenged rule imposes only limited burdens on the right to vote, there is no requirement that the rule is the only or the best way to further the proffered interests.” Dudum, 640 F.3d at 1114.11 Finally, where, as here, the regulation at issue imposes only a slight burden on a party's constitutional rights, that party “bear[s] the burden of demonstrating that the regulations [it] attack[s] have no legitimate rational basis.” Munro, 31 F.3d at 763.
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. Section 16–152(A)(5) is rationally related to Arizona's legitimate interest in ensuring that election official correctly register voters as members of parties of their choosing. By providing checkboxes for the two largest political parties, the Registration Form reduces the potential that an election official will incorrectly register a voter who wishes to affiliate with one of the state's two most prominent parties. Because the overwhelming majority of Arizona voters are registered with one of the two major parties, the checkbox method ensures that most voters will be able to participate in the primary election of their choosing. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16–467 (providing that, in primary elections, voters who are registered as a member of a political party shall be given “one ballot only of the party with which the voter is affiliated”). Ensuring that voters are able to participate in their preferred party's primary election is, at the very least, a legitimate state interest. See Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 58, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973) (“Under our political system, a basic function of a political party is to select the candidates for public office to be offered to the voters at general elections. A prime objective of most voters in associating themselves with a particular party must surely be to gain a voice in that selection process.”).
The starting point for analyzing an election law challenge is the Supreme Court's opinion in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992). The Court succinctly stated the applicable standard: “A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights.” Id. at 434 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In Munro, we summarized Burdick as follows: “If the burden is severe, the challenged procedures will pass muster only if they are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. If the burden is slight, the procedures will survive review as long as they have a rational basis.” 31 F.3d at 761 (citing, but not quoting, Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434). According to Munro, in the event plaintiffs can only demonstrate a “slight” or “de minimis ” impairment of their rights, they then bear “the burden of demonstrating that the regulations they attack have no legitimate rational basis.” Id. at 763. The panel repeats the Munro standard. Maj. Op. at 17.
Neither rational basis review nor the burden-shifting framework articulated in Munro is found in Burdick, nor in any other Supreme Court voting rights decision since. The Supreme Court has consistently employed language that rejects traditional rational basis review. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, 128 S.Ct. 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008), for example, the Court wrote that there is no “litmus test for measuring the severity of a burden that a state law imposes on a political party, an individual voter, or a discrete class of voters. However slight that burden may appear ․ it must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests ‘sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.’ “ Id. at 191 (quoting Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 288–89, 112 S.Ct. 698, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992)).
It may well be that the semantic distinction between the balancing test and the rational basis standard articulated in Munro makes little difference in many cases. See Christopher S. Elmendorf, Structuring Judicial Review of Electoral Mechanics: Explanations and Opportunities, 156 U. Pa. L.Rev. 313, 330 (2007) (“For now, suffice it to say that the Supreme Court typically applies something like rational basis review in [voting rights cases where the burden is nonsevere], but that the rationality standard may not be quite so lax as the one applied to ordinary economic and social legislation.”). However, it is difficult to believe that the Supreme Court's articulation of the balancing standard represents anything other than a deliberate choice to eschew traditional rational basis review. The balancing standard instructs courts to be vigilant in their review of rules and regulations that disadvantage minority viewpoints. See Anderson, 460 U.S. at 793 (1983) (“[I]t is especially difficult for the State to justify a restriction that limits political participation by an identifiable political group whose members share a particular viewpoint, associational preference, or economic status .”). The balancing principle also recognizes that voting laws that at first glance appear to be inconsequential may unfairly distort election outcomes. See, e.g., Gould v. Grubb, 14 Cal.3d 661, 122 Cal.Rptr. 377, 536 P.2d 1337, 1346 (Cal.1975) (holding that it is unconstitutional for a ballot to list candidates in alphabetical order because it “reserves advantageous ballot positions for candidates whose names begin with letters occurring early in the alphabet”).
Any effort to apply the balancing standard to this case is hamstrung by a lack of evidence. It is remarkable that both parties rely principally on generalizations, i.e. a claimed burden, or platitudes, i.e. efficiency, rather than evidence. Other than the registration form itself and statistics that show an ambiguous decline in voter registrations across all political parties, the minority parties have not presented any evidence that demonstrates the burden on their rights. Likewise, the state has not even attempted to document the administrative benefits of its voter registration form. Without any evidence regarding the practical consequences of the voter registration form, we find ourselves in the position of Lady Justice: blindfolded and stuck holding empty scales.
In light of the poorly developed record in this case, I conclude that the voter registration form passes constitutional muster. The form is constitutional, however, not because the minority parties have “failed to meet their burden” of demonstrating it “ha[s] no legitimate rational basis,” Maj. Op. at 17. Rather, the voter registration form is constitutional because, even on the thin record we have before us, the state's asserted interests in reducing printing costs and easing administrative efficiency are “sufficiently weighty to justify” the speculative burden on the plaintiffs' rights. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191.

References: v. 
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 v. 
 § 16
 § 16
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.