Document: 502 U.S. 279 112 S.Ct. 698 116 L.Ed.2d 711 Barbara J. NORMAN, et al., Petitioners,v.Dorothy REED al. COOK COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD, Petitioners, v. Dorothy Nos. 90-1126, 90-1435. Argued Oct. 7, 1991. Decided Jan. 14, 1992. Syllabus Illinois citizens wishing to establish a "new political party" may field candidates for statewide office after collecting the signatures of 25,000 eligible voters, and they solely offices in large "political subdivision" upon subdivision voters. Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 46, § 10-2. However, when comprises separate districts from which some its officers are elected, party organizers seeking fill such must collect each district. Ibid. A new becomes an "established if it receives 5% vote next election, but that has not engaged election can become "established" only where fielded candidates. Petitioners sought expand Harold Washington Party (HWP), established Chicago, Cook County, comprising two electoral districts: city district suburban Before 1990 elections, presented county with petition containing 44,000 7,800 slate both at-large district-specific seats. Respondent Reed other voters (collectively, Reed) filed objections County Officers Electoral Board (Board). The rejected Reed's claim 10-5—which prohibits bearing party's name—prevented petitioners using HWP name, holding 10-5's purpose was prevent persons affiliated latching on thus causing voter confusion denigrating cohesiveness, these dangers were present here since one Evans—the candidate run Chicago's most recent election—had authorized use name. also found petitioners' failure gather suburbs disqualified suburban-district seats, those running city-district county-wide offices, designate judicial seats did disqualify entire slate. Circuit Court affirmed Board's ruling held doomed under 10-2 by obtain sufficient and, alternatively, list any State Supreme 10-5 prohibited name that, 10-2, enough This granted application stay, permitting them election. Although no several received over vote, would qualify as within all or part Held: 1. controversy is moot even though over, because "capable repetition yet evading review," results will entitle enter so long entitled their places ballot. P. 287-288. 2. Sections 10-5, construed Court, violate right access Pp. 288-295. (a) create develop parties derives First Fourteenth Amendments advances constitutional interest likeminded pursuit common ends, enlarging voters' opportunities express own preferences. See, e.g., Elections Bd. Socialists Workers Party, 440 173, 184, 99 983, 990, 59 230. Therefore, limit parties' ballot extent sufficiently weighty state justifies restriction. Any severe restriction be narrowly drawn advance compelling importance. See id., at 186, S.Ct., 991. 288-289. (b) Court's inhospitable reading far broader than necessary serve asserted preventing misrepresentation confusion. That could served merely requiring get formal permission simple expedient fostering informed electorate without suppressing small growth. offers support her apparent assumption Chicago HWP, itself unworthy mention theory Evans lacked authority law authorize name's use. 289-291. (c) Similarly, disqualifying least restrictive means advancing Illinois' limiting demonstrated public support, require twice many need wished office. Socialist supra. Even have constitutionally required demonstrate distribution throughout done raising overall quantum needed above what expects parties. Moreover, requires elusive logic show serious demanding local deems unimportant 291-294. (d) Nonetheless, nominating does unduly burden Just cite HWP's reason district, neither success condition suburbs. P.295. 3. issue whether remanded consider first instance. 295-296. Affirmed part, reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. SCALIA, dissenting opinion. THOMAS, took consideration decision cases. Robert E. Pincham, Jr., Ill., No. 90-1126. Kenneth L. Gillis, Burton S. Odelson, Evergreen Park, Gregory A. Adamski, respondents. Justice SOUTER Court. 1 In consolidated cases, we review barring 90-1126 (petitioners) appearing November offices. We affirm reverse remand further proceedings inconsistent this 2 * Under law, organizing canvass area wish persuade sign petitions. Organizers voters,1 (1989), like subdivision. If, however, Ibid.2 If place ballot, organization succeeds gathering party," freed signature requirements example, fared well municipal elections. 3 (HWP Party), named late mayor been 1989. principal effort establishing office, 4 corresponding (city district) rest (suburban district).3 officials elected county, members Commissioners separately board specifically designated While certain filled large, others capture representing County. 5 Because had previously obliged order Accordingly, And allocated districts, gathered component petition, component. 6 After authorities respondent interested (Board Board). claims. First, dismissed contention there already "Harold Party" various relied provision form, "shall bear same as, nor include party. . ." (1989). Board, suggested literal effectively forbid expanding into others, provision's true "to who 'latching on' popular thereby promoting cohesiveness." here, Timothy Evans, 7 failed commissioner observed construing statute basis valid raise concerns. 8 Finally, either offices.4 It decided, among things, apply judgeships nonjudicial 9 On appeal, grounds different Board's. ruled while statutory power implicitly confined scope cases coexist Since subdivisions, violation Election Code. 10 nonetheless plain language slate, alternatively compelled result. For independent reasons, Board.5 11 review, brief written races expressly declined discuss points raised appeal" chose address effect judgeships. Three court's seven dissented ground majority's construction irrationally unconstitutionally suppressed development majority Justices indicated explanatory opinion, never have.6 12 then applied stay who, his capacity Justice, ordered mandate "stayed or, necessary, recalled" pending Order A90-309 (Oct. 22, 1990). October 25, 1990, full filing disposition certiorari, 498 ----, 111 333, 298, reviving 6, According undisputed representation see Brief 90-1435, p. 10, none receive fulfilling, stands, apparently Party's qualification 13 due course, certiorari action, 90-1435.7 May 20, 500 2051, 114 457 (1991). II 14 start should treat over. not. before us limited eligibility worthy resolution " 'capable repetition, review.' Moore Ogilvie, 394 814, 816, 89 1493, 1494, 23 (1969). There every expect generate similar, future subject identical time constraints fail resolve issues arose 1990. 15 matter carries potential greater significance, however. As noted, our gave them. underscores vitality questions posed, life now behind us. III 16 more decades, recognized Amendments8 Anderson Celebrezze, 460 780, 793-794, 103 1564, 1572-1573, 75 547 (1983); 230 (1979); Williams Rhodes, 393 23, 30-31, 5, 10-11, 21 24 (1968). To degree thwart called demonstration justify limitation, Anderson, supra, U.S., 789, 1570, accordingly By lights look §§ Illinois, 17 Reversing judgment held, represent Chicago. court reasons concluding beyond declaring "petitioner[s'] violate[d] provisions section 10-5," which, "prohibits party." Thus, sense "separate parties," how adopt city. 18 based answer question determination seems exclude very possibility authorization, prohibition "use literally bar ever another. dissent below suggest, draconian obviously foreclose lacking resources campaign. obviously, State's highest it, interests. 19 confusion, may, prohibit adopting another way particularly strong where, self-described geographical area. But avoid ills seek represent, growth sweeps violates Amendment association. 1572-1573; Williams, 30-34, 10-12. 20 argues led R. Eugene "different from" leadership she indeed suggesting assumption, stands odds few relevant facts record reveals. mayoral acknowledging chairman ruled, dispute, "as HWP," "the person empowered Code act official HWP." authoritative contrary, legal argument insufficiency Evans' authorization. sure, ours say lacks procedural mechanism might to, not, follow Our reveals empowers newly (here, Evans) appoint "committeemen," whose "manage control affairs" exclusive outside original unlikely, reasoning mind. limitation arise whereas simply "violate[d] 10-5." event, role inconclusive unargued theories mention.9 B 22 alternative prohibiting together invoked requirement "[e]ach signed [25,000] qualified disqualification appropriate penalty failing meet requirement, treated adequate constitutionality governing number (1979), examined Illinois's earlier ballot-access scheme, elections (as still are) signatures. At time, subdivisions totalling people voting previous restricting contests indication onerous standard interest. Id., Legislature responded amending cap "any exceeds 25,000, needs 25 interpretation rendered below, retains flaw increasing applicable districts. interpretation, disqualifies prerequisite multi-district multiple used "component" (i.e., district-specific) form accumulate 50,000 (25,000 suburbs) do face Workers, forbids statewide. 26 tries skirt claims interest, addressed case, ensuring multidistrict extends Accepting legitimacy claimed excuse requirement's unconstitutional breadth. fielding might, minimum maintaining total 25,000. cf. said demonstrates chosen tailored suggests. 27 Nor weakness rationale. apportion counties State. 10-2; Communist Elections, 518 F.2d 517 (CA7), cert. denied, 423 986, 96 394, 46 303 (1975). therefore win county's ensure enjoy criteria instance judging rules ballots narrow pass muster. adduced justification disparity here.10 C 28 Up point, positions coincided. They diverge matter, burdens suggest showing absence division unconstitutional, precedents argument. uncontested arithmetic, rule slightly 2% 9, n. considerably lenient upheld Jenness Fortson, 403 431, 91 1970, 29 554 (1971) (involving requirement). urban IV case presents final issue, unable resolve. Some County's judges responding objection exclusion fulfill 'complete requirement' Code." overruled invalidating 30 decline constitutional. decide whether, omission slate.11 prompt issue. Bacchus Imports, Ltd. Dias, 468 263, 277, 104 3049, 3058, 82 200 (1984); McCluney Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 454 1071, 1073-1074, 102 624, 625-626, 70 607 (1981) (STEVENS, dissenting).12 31 32 ordered. 33 THOMAS case. 34 dissenting. 35 defending judgment, clear analysis respondents, accepts characterization involving straightforward version (1979). my view wrong, leads wrong No proper interfering arrangement 36 involved challenge then-requirement State, (and candidates) voted high be—even 175-176, 985-986. objected having 60,000 177, 986. although legitimate 'significant modicum support,' "no reason" justifying 185-186, 990-991. 37 contends current interpreted suffers "constitutional flaw": "effectively increas[es] [because] subdivision." Ante, 293. "a parties." 38 serves why distinguishable. heightened ) single office; party), What creates "effectively," says, sort "complete slate," i.e., subdivision's virtue new-party unless him votes Such indirect consequences slate" were, position. dispositive 39 reasonable purported "party," presumably policy plans subdivision, elect multimember Otherwise, less "party" committee member board. ultimately concedes this, taken account) SocialistWorkersParty. 293-294. makes difference, because: (1) achieved proportion total, ante, 293-294; (2) considers important, "does State," ibid. I find response persuasive. first: permissible fraction (presumably population) figure; permitted up word. amount irrational "apportion." genuine minimum, recall, percentage (5%) prior course automatically adjusts size unit. figure think "apportionment" assure support. second argument: fact geographic irrelevant. Neither distribution, such, care district-wide comes ward—just care, county. reflects concern geographically distributed election; exist 40 Perhaps invalid. point made, (to take erroneously point) "deems [the requirement] unimportant," "serious interest" it. 294. American scientists known James Madison pointed out, Federalist pp. 62-64 (H. Dawson ed. 1876), factionalism decrease unit larger. much chance whole hamstrung multitude so-called "parties," represents sectional districts; real stalemated equal between "City "County members. litigants speculate. assumed legitimate, saying (if election) cannot demanded. governed me quite wrong. respectfully dissent. More precisely, 1% preceding general whichever less. Given population, applies. reads part: "In at-large, shall consist components officer elected. Each circulated electors residents sheet contain complete names sheets particular equalling regular including components, large." caps petitions signatures, applies each. These learned referendum, adopted ordinance providing 1994 send Board. secure ordinance, have. call requirement" occasionally term discussion petitioner's voids clarity, altogether. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District candidates, appealed four justices left date order. practice, appealed, joins prevailing decision. (1983), "[w]e base conclusions directly engage Equal Protection Clause analysis. rely, resting Amendment." 786-787, 1568-1569, 7. seem make Appellees 70833 (Sup.Ct.Ill.), 20-21. sentence devotes topic, similar observation: "While C. power, pursuant Code, ability interim committeemen." App. Pet. Cert. 19a. passages inadequate prove argument, arguably waived "Objector's Petition" 14-15. There, violated 10-5. extent, history explains anomaly. Seventh Circuit's stringent, developments, fact, anomaly Yet, noted there, explanation justification. 187, 991; 189, 993 concurring judgment); 190-191, 992-993 (REHNQUIST, judgment). "Historical accident, more, constitute interest." Among possibilities, agree conclusion construe Schneider, 67 Ill.2d 165, Ill.Dec. 514, 365 N.E.2d 900 (1977), hold invalidate restate conclusion, rule, denominated requirement," see, post, 298,299 (dissenting opinion's context); 23a-24a (Circuit context), wholly given Part III(B) above.

Category: 1