Opinion ID: 160439
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural Requirement

Text: 27 The State, relying heavily on voter registration cases, also attempts to characterize voter registration as a simple procedure, or mechanical adjunct, that is authorized under Thornton. Id. at 832 (The Framers intended the Elections Clause to grant States authority to create procedural regulations. . . . ). In Colorado Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 495 P.2d 220, 222 (Colo. 1972) (en banc), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the act of registration is not a qualification but a mechanical adjunct to the elective process for the elector. See also Duprey v. Anderson, 518 P.2d 807, 808 (Colo. 1974) (en banc) (Registering to vote does not come within the ambit of a constitutional qualification to vote.). The State then concludes that if a voter's registration is a mechanical adjunct then a candidate's act of registration is also a mechanical adjunct. 28 Mr. Campbell relies upon Dillon v. Fiorina, 340 F. Supp. 729 (D.N.M. 1972) (per curiam) to counter the State's argument. In Dillon, the district court struck down a New Mexico statute that prevented any person from becoming a candidate for United States Senator unless he ha[d] been affiliated with that party for at least one year prior to the filing date for the primary election. Id. at 730. The court determined that, because the statute in effect required residency for two years within New Mexico, it added an impermissible requirement to the qualifications for candidacy. Id. at 731; see also State ex rel. Chavez v. Evans, 446 P.2d 445, 448 (N.M. 1968) (holding that provision requiring candidate to be a resident and qualified elector unconstitutionally adds additional qualifications); Hellmann v. Collier, 141 A.2d 908, 912 (Md. 1958) (per curiam) (invalidating requirement that a congressional representative must reside in the district from which he is elected); see also Application of Ferguson, 294 N.Y.S.2d 174, 175-76 (1968) (holding that state may not exclude convicted felon as a candidate for the United States Senate); Danielson v. Fitzsimmons, 44 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Minn. 1950) (holding that state cannot render person convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the government ineligible for Congress). 2 29 We agree with Mr. Campbell's assertions. We recognize that an administrative process designed to facilitate participation in the election process does not impinge on the qualifications of a voter, but we agree with the district court that the registration process for a candidate adds to a candidate's qualifications. 30 As the district court highlighted, an electoral requirement presupposes residency and, in turn, excludes groups from participating in the candidacy process. The authority to create procedural regulations as derived from the Elections Clause did not . . . provide States with license to exclude classes of candidates from federal office. Thornton, 514 U.S. at 832-33. We agree with the district court that the requirement of registration is a substantive requirement that impermissibly imposes qualifications upon would-be candidates. 31