Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061762.html
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 22:11:06
Document Index: 208576335

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200210', '§\u200216', '§\u200216', '§\u200216', '§\u200216', '§\u200216', '§\u200216']

ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY INC v. Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Arizona, Defendant. | FindLaw
ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY INC v. Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Arizona, Defendant.
ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY, INC.; Barry Hess; Peter Schmerl; John Jason Auvenshine; Ed Kahn, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Betsey BAYLESS, Arizona Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant, Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Arizona, Defendant.
No. 02-16535.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Paula Bickett and Joseph A. Kanefield, Assistant Attorneys General of the State of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, for the defendant-appellant. David T. Hardy, Tucson, AZ, for the plaintiffs-appellees. Daniel R. Ortiz, University of Virginia Law School, Charlottesville, VA, for amicus curiae The Reform Institute, Inc.
Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc., and four of its members, challenge Arizona's semiclosed primary system, added to the state constitution by Arizona voters in 1998. Under Arizona's primary system, voters who are unaffiliated, registered as independents, or registered as members of parties that are not on the primary ballot may vote in the party primary of their choice. See Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 10; Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 16-467, 16-542. Voters who are registered with a party that is on the ballot may vote only in their party's primary. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-467. The primary ballot contains the names of candidates for all government officers elected in the general election, as well as party precinct committeemen, who are elected in the primary.
The district court held that the primary system violates the plaintiffs' First Amendment right to select their party leaders free from governmental interference because the law allows nonparty members to vote for party precinct committeemen. See Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Pima County Bd. of Supervisors, 216 F.Supp.2d 1007, 1010 (D.Ariz.2002). The court summarily held that the entire primary system was unconstitutional without separately considering whether nonmembers' selection of party nominees in the primary election violates the First Amendment. Id. We affirm as to the election of Libertarian Party precinct committeemen. We remand so that the district court may consider separately whether nonmembers' participation in the selection of Libertarian candidates is unconstitutional and, if not, whether the provisions related to the election of Libertarian precinct committeemen are severable.
The plaintiffs' injury is also traceable to the defendant's conduct, and may be redressed by a favorable court decision, because the Secretary of State has authority over primary elections. The Secretary of State in Arizona is responsible for promulgating rules and procedures for the administration of primary elections, including rules related to the distribution of ballots. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-452(A). Any person who does not abide by the Secretary of State's rules is subject to criminal penalties. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-452(C). The defendant relies on Rubin to argue that any injury the plaintiffs have suffered is traceable to the counties, which directly administer primary elections, and not the Secretary of State. See Rubin, 308 F.3d at 1019-20. Unlike the electoral scheme in Rubin, however, the Arizona Secretary of State's promulgated rules are applicable to and mandatory for the statewide primary elections at issue here. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs have standing in this case.
II. SELECTION OF PRECINCT COMMITTEEMEN
Our decision on the merits is guided by two Supreme Court decisions involving California election laws. The first relates to the selection of party leaders. See Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989). The other relates to the selection of party candidates. See California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 120 S.Ct. 2402, 147 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); see also Democratic Party of Washington State v. Reed, 343 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.2003). We apply a balancing test to determine whether an election law violates a political party's associational rights. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997). A state law that imposes a severe burden on those rights must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling state interest. Id. A law that imposes a lesser burden is subject to a less exacting review, and “important regulatory interests” are sufficient to justify it. Id.
The district court correctly held that allowing nonmembers to vote for party precinct committeemen violates the Libertarian Party's associational rights. Precinct committeemen are important party leaders who choose replacement candidates for candidates who die or resign before an election, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-343, and collectively constitute the state party committee, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 16-821, 16-825. In Eu, the Supreme Court held that California's restrictions on how parties should be organized and how they select their leaders unconstitutionally burdened political parties' freedom of association. 489 U.S. at 230-31, 109 S.Ct. 1013 (“Here, party members do not seek to associate with nonparty members, but only with one another in freely choosing their party leaders.”). The Court recognized the strength of a party's interest in selecting its own leaders. See id. at 230, 109 S.Ct. 1013. It also noted the important role party leaders play in shaping the party's message. See id. at 231 n. 21, 109 S.Ct. 1013.
III. SELECTION OF CANDIDATES
These factual issues must be reviewed in light of the Court's opinion in Jones. The Supreme Court there held that California's blanket primary system imposed a severe burden on a party's right to decide for itself who it will, and will not, associate with for the purposes of selecting a candidate. Jones, 530 U.S. at 582, 120 S.Ct. 2402; see also Reed, 343 F.3d at 1204-05. Under a blanket primary system, all voters are able to vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation. Jones, 530 U.S. at 570, 120 S.Ct. 2402. This system differs from Arizona's, which restricts registered members of opposing parties with ballot access to voting in their own party's primary. Arizona's system also limits independent and unaffiliated voters who choose to vote in a party primary to participating in selecting only the candidates of that party. The Supreme Court in Jones noted that a system “in which the voter is limited to one party's ballot” may be “constitutionally distinct” from the unconstitutional blanket primary. Id. at 577 n. 8, 120 S.Ct. 2402.
Should the district court determine that Arizona's candidate selection system is constitutional under Jones, it next must conduct a severability analysis. In general, only the unconstitutional portion of a legislative enactment should be invalidated. See Nat'l Adver. Co. v. City of Orange, 861 F.2d 246, 249-50 (9th Cir.1988). Although severability is a question of state law that we review de novo, see Randolph v. Groscost, 195 Ariz. 423, 989 P.2d 751, 755 (1999) (setting out the test for considering the severability of provisions of voter-approved initiative under Arizona law); Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 239, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991) (holding that the district court's interpretation of state law is reviewed de novo), we nonetheless consider it prudent to remand to the district court where “we believe the district court is better able to decide the question in the first instance.” Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 529 (9th Cir.1989).