Opinion ID: 686429
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assessing the state's interest

Text: 44 Having concluded that the burden imposed is not severe, it follows that we do not apply strict scrutiny to the statutory requirement. Rather, we need to evaluate only whether the requirement is justified by a legitimate interest and is a reasonable way of accomplishing this goal. Burdick, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2067. 45 The justification put forth in support of the provision is the state's interest in limiting the ballot to those candidates who have demonstrated support, and its interest in assuring that the support demonstrated is bona fide and is not the product of fraud or misrepresentation. Organization by election district provides a swift and efficient method of confirming voter registration, defenders of the provision contend. Cf. Rutter v. Coveney, 38 N.Y.2d 993, 994, 384 N.Y.S.2d 437, 348 N.E.2d 913 (1976) (stating that ED, AD requirements are designed to facilitate the discovery of irregularities or fraud in petitions). 46 These interests are by no means novel and have long enjoyed support in the case law. The requirement that a candidate make a preliminary showing of substantial support helps to prevent a ballot that is complex and confusing but does not enhance the democratic nature of our political processes. LaRouche, 990 F.2d at 39 (citing Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971)). The state is further entitled to take steps to ensure that elections are fair and honest. Burdick, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2063 (quoting Storer, 415 U.S. at 730, 94 S.Ct. at 1279). 47 The Supreme Court in Anderson stated that we must pass[ ] judgment on the legitimacy and strength of the state's proffered interests. 460 U.S. at 789, 103 S.Ct. at 1570. The plaintiffs have contended that section 6-140, as well as section 5-602, represents a deliberate design by the principal political parties to prevent independent bodies from gaining access to the ballot. Yet, they provide no evidence to support this claim. And if it were true, then the asserted culprits have not had much success: As the plaintiffs represented, 23 of the last 24 petitions resulted in independent bodies gaining access to the ballot. Thus, the restriction aims to achieve a legitimate state interest.