Opinion ID: 2966435
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voter Education

Text: Finally, the May filing deadline also has been held out to serve the state interest in ensuring that voters are in a position to cast their ballot in an informed and intelligent manner. There can be no question about the legitimacy of the State's interest in fostering informed and educated expressions of the popular will in a general election. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 796. However, for the reasons set forth above, it would appear that an individual's declaration of candidacy under § 3-5-23 would still serve to let the public know of the individual's intent to run and would provide to voters an adequate opportunity to thoughtfully consider the candidate's views and thereby cast an informed vote even if the filing deadline for petitions in nonpresidential elections was moved to August. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recognized that the effect of the drastic changes in communications technology, the literacy rate, and the degree to which citizens are informed about events and issues lessen the need for the state to provide broad protections to ensure voter education. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 796-97 Indeed, in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 358 (1982) the Court rejected the rationale posited by the state to justify a statute requiring residence in the state 20 for a year and in the county for three months as a prerequisite to voter registration because: Given modern communications, and given the clear indication that campaign spending and voter education occur largely during the month before an election, the State cannot seriously maintain that it is `necessary' to reside for a year in the State and three months in the county in order to be knowledgeable about congressional, state, or even purely local elections. (Emphasis added.) The recent decision of this Court in Cromer v. South Carolina, 917 F.2d 819 (4th Cir. 1990), reinforces this view. There, the Court held that while no constitutional maximum or minimum has been developed, a decent interval for voter education is about 60 to 90 days before a general election. Id. at 825. Beyond that period, some other interest would seem to be needed to justify an earlier declaration of independent candidacy. Id. Here, the state has failed to offer any reason why the period from August to November is insufficient to allow voters to learn about the candidates and to cast a vote on an informed basis. Consequently, in light of both Supreme Court precedent and this Court's decision in Cromer, this justification for the May filing deadline fails to outweigh the constitutional burden it creates. Hence, it is constitutionally impermissible. For the foregoing reasons, I would strike the challenged provisions of West Virginia's ballot access restriction law. 21