Document: 432 U.S. 173 97 S.Ct. 2238 53 L.Ed.2d 199 Marvin MANDEL, Governor of Maryland, et al., Appellants,v.Bruce BRADLEY al. No. 76-128. June 16, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 Candidates for statewide or federal office in Maryland may obtain a place on the general election ballot by filing with State Administrative Board Election Laws certificate candidacy 70 days before political party's primary and then winning primary. Alternatively, under provisions Elec. Code, candidate qualify position as an independent filing, date which party primaries are held, nominating petitions signed at least 3% State's registered voters candidacy. Md. Code Ann. § 7-1, (1976 Supp.1976). In Presidential years this occurs approximately 230 to 240 election. other it about 120 §§ 1-1(a)(8), 5-2, 7-1. 2 Appellee Bruce Bradley decided spring 1975 run United States Senate 1976, year. Starting fall collected signatures petitions. The requisite number was 51,155. On March 8, deadline submitted 53,239 filed seat. However, April 15, determined that only 42,049 were valid denied him ballot. 3 Two weeks later, appellees petition signers voter supporters instant suit, alleging procedures mandated 7-1 Md.Elec.Code Supp. 1976) constitute unconstitutional infringement their associational voting rights First Fourteenth Amendments. They complained Maryland's early made more difficult than member win sought, inter alia, injunction against future enforcement offending provision procedures. A three-judge District Court agreed 7-1(i)(Supp. burden candidate's access ordered appellants give after gather signatures.1 4 court based its holding our summary affirmance Tucker v. Salera, 424 959, 96 1451, 47 727 (1976), aff'g 399 F.Supp. 1258 (E.D.Pa.1975). declared Pennsylvania law setting 244 Under law, independents had submit 2% largest vote cast any preceding election, but they required within 21-day period prior deadline. declaring statute invalid, relied, not short signature gathering (which thought Storer Brown, 415 724, 94 1274, 39 714 (1974)), solely submission necessary signatures. found substantially burdened requiring them time when issues undefined apathetic. It also rejected various countervailing state interests been urged. This summarily affirmed judgment Salera. 5 case viewed Court's Salera controlling precedent proposition dates, such employed unconstitutionally burdensome ballot, therefore favor appellees. We noted probable jurisdiction, 429 813, 52, 50 73 (1976). 6 erred believing adopted reasoning well thus conclude is impermissibly burdensome. Hicks Miranda, 422 332, 95 2281, 45 223 (1975), held lower courts bound actions merits Court, we "(a)scertaining reach content itself present real substance". Id., 345 n. 14, S.Ct., 2290. Because only, rationale be gleaned from opinion below. 7 "When affirm, without opinion, . affirm necessarily reached. An unexplicated settles parties, read renunciation doctrines previously announced opinions full argument." (Footnote omitted.) Fusari Steinberg, 419 379, 391-392, 533, 541, 42 521 (1975) (Burger, C. J., concurring). 8 Summary affirmances dismissals want substantial question doubt reject specific challenges presented statement jurisdiction do leave undisturbed appealed from. prevent coming opposite conclusions precise those actions. After example, free invalidated nevertheless constitutional. actions, however, including should understood breaking new ground applying principles established decisions particular facts involved. 9 Here, ruled legally "Salera decides issue us, latest expression Supreme follow it." App. Jurisdictional Statement 12a. precedential significance action assessed light all case; immediately apparent very different case. There, addition date, gathered period. limited enormously increased difficulty obtaining candidate.2 10 combination limitation sufficient distinguish now where there no must gathered. short, did mandate result reached 11 preoccupation failed undertake examination merits. appropriate inquiry set out supra, U.S., 742, 1285: 12 "(I)n context (Maryland) politics, could reasonably diligent expected satisfy (ballot access) requirements, will rarely unaffiliated succeed getting ballot? Past experience helpful, if always unerring, guide: one thing candidates have qualified some regularity quite matter not. note here mentions instance qualifying disclaims having comprehensive survey official records would perhaps reveal truth matter." 13 itself, because applied these standards adjudicating constitutional it, remanded "to permit further findings respect extent imposed candidates." 740, 1284. There reason doing less. sift through conflicting evidence make fact meet consider features electoral system unlimited during collected, unrestricted pool potential moderate whatever creates. See Developments Law Elections, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 1111, 1142-1143 (1975). analyze what past might indicate seeking access. Instead, assumption per se illegal expedited basis upon decided3 resulted failure apply statutory issue.4 14 application record is, first instance, task Court. vacate judgment, remand proceedings consistent opinion.5 15 so ordered. 16 Mr. Justice REHNQUIST took part consideration decision 17 BRENNAN, concurring. 18 I join write emphasize treatment rule 19 dissent denial certiorari Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. Rizzo, 428 913, 3228, 49 1222 stated why, my view, "appropriate, conclusive, weight dispositions", id., 923, 3233 rather required, Hicks, treat dispositions appeals conclusive precedents regarding like statutes ordinances." 3229. 20 relying Auerbach Mandel, 409 808, 93 55, 34 69 (1972), effectively embraces vividly exposes ambiguity inherent nature detailed analysis essential can whether accord disposition effect. today, judges systems notice that, deciding authority another case, (a) examine jurisdictional earlier certain questions same and, were, (b) determine rests even arguably alternative nonconstitutional ground. interpreted unless construction plausible. words, weight" given dispositions. 21 WHITE, whom POWELL joins, 22 Although many indications considered controlling, independently grounds similar event, inappropriate fairly arguable unmistakably validity law. Brethren defer judgment. 23 STEVENS, dissenting. 24 unfairly discriminates respect. requires his become much sooner national party. 25 merely file That procedure simple he postpone until day still legal requirements contrast, complete process 70th Since inevitably require significant amount time, advance 26 has put forward justification disparate treatment. Moreover, potentially great significance. prompted sudden, unanticipated event local importance. If occur 71st primary, members timely 27 evenhanded impact timing most important make. burdens shoulder heavy enough formidable opponents so.* 28 developed argument successfully signatures, obtained ran, lost. nonetheless moot. 737, 1282, (1974). noted, 24-day invalidate statute, clearly recognized limitation, combined scheme. 742-743, 1285. reading Brown irrelevant 30, 1976. convened heard May 12, 17. both 1972 1976 effective succeeded tending substantiate appellees' contention existed variety obstacles way support far Without intimating ultimate view challenge, substance warrant proceedings. "technical administrative signing process" never Bradley's success * Jenness Fortson, 403 431, 91 1970, 29 554, upheld Georgia applicable These collect 5% last question. 432, 1971. 180 accomplish completed meet. 433-434, 1971-1972. Thus, aspects find handicap candidates. decisive neither raised nor Jenness, see 434, 1972. point, KVOS, Inc. Associated Press, 299 269, 279, 57 197, 201, 81 L.Ed. 183, quoting Webster Fall, 266 507, 511, 148, 149, 411 (" 'Questions lurk record, brought attention upon, precedents.' "). For reasons Edelman Jordan, 651, 670-671, 1347, 1359, 662, regard 69, controlling.

Category: 1