Opinion ID: 2966435
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ensuring A Modicum Of Support

Text: First, the primary eve filing deadline has been justified on the ground that it insures that candidates on the election ballot have demonstrated at least a modicum of support. That interest, of course, has been identified by the Supreme Court as the fundamental interest which any state has in promulgating regulations that govern the administration of elections. As the Court explained: the State has the undoubted right to require candidates to make a preliminary showing of substantial support in order to qualify for a place on the ballot, because it is both wasteful and confusing to encumber the ballot with the names of frivolous candidates. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 788 n.9 (citations omitted). While the May 1 filing deadline may contribute in some way to ensure that third-party and independent candidates demonstrate a showing of support before the state permits their appearance on the ballot, the restriction cannot be said to be eithernecessary or narrowly tailored to serve this interest. Since 1984 when Anderson was decided, West Virginia has operated successfully under a requirement that third party and independent presidential candidates must file petitions on August 1. History shows that this has adequately served the 18 state's interest in avoiding a ballot encumbered by insignificant candidates. The state has neither asserted otherwise nor offered any reason why an August 1 deadline would not equally serve the state's interest in requiring state candidates to show amodicum of support. Under such a circumstance, the Supreme Court has admonished that: [E]ven when pursuing a legitimate interest, a State may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty. Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 806 (citations omitted). Accordingly, where, as here, there are two approaches which equally serve the legitimate interests of the state, and one of those methods is less burdensome upon the exercise of a basic constitutional right, the more burdensome approach, if adopted by the state, is not constitutionally permissible.