Opinion ID: 4558221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutional Validity of the Restrictions

Text: “At the third step of Anderson-Burdick we assess whether the State’s restrictions are constitutionally valid given the strength of its proffered interests.” Schmitt, 933 F.3d at 641. Plaintiffs point to our decision in Esshaki to suggest that the combination of the ballot-access provisions and the Stay-at-Home Order cannot pass constitutional muster. But there, we applied strict scrutiny because the combined effect of the Stay-at-Home Order and ballot-access provisions effectively excluded the candidates from the ballot. 813 F. App’x at 171–72; see Thompson, 959 F.3d at 809 (“At bottom, a severe burden excludes or virtually excludes electors . . . from the ballot.”). To be sure, obtaining signatures might well be more difficult now than it would be in normal circumstances. But, “just because procuring signatures is now harder (largely because of a disease beyond the control of the State) doesn’t mean that Plaintiffs are excluded from the ballot.” Thompson, 959 F.3d at 810. On balance, the State’s well-established and legitimate interests in administering its own elections through candidate-eligibility and ballot-access requirements outweigh the intermediate burden imposed on Plaintiffs.