Document: 405 U.S. 134 92 S.Ct. 849 31 L.Ed.2d Bob BULLOCK et al., Appellants,v.Van Phillip CARTER al. No. 70—128. Argued Nov. 17, 1971. Decided Feb. 24, 1972. Syllabus Appellees who sought to become candidates for local office in the Texas Democratic primary election challenged District Court validity of statutory scheme which, without write-in or other alternative provisions, requires payment fees ranging as high $8,900. claimed that they were unable pay required and therefore barred from running. Under statute, party committee estimates total cost apportions it among according its judgment what is 'just equitable,' light 'the importance, emolument, term office.' The tend appreciably exceed those statewide candidates. Following a hearing, declared fee system invalid enjoined enforcement. Appellants contend filing are necessary both regulate ballot finance elections. Held: filing-fee contravenes Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 140—149. (a) Since statute imposes such magnitude numerous qualified precluded filing, falls with unequal weight on voters their ability fees, must be 'closely scrutinized' can sustained only if reasonably accomplish legitimate state objective not merely because has some rational basis. 140—144. (b) Although State an interest regulating number eliminating spurious, cannot attain these objectives by arbitrary means called which eliminates potential candidates, like involved here, afford fees. 144—147. (c) apportionment costs available elections, identify certain bodies political parties entitled sponsorship itself finances primaries, does general important parts democratic process. 147—149. Carter v. Dies, D.C., 321 F.Supp. 1358, affirmed. John F. Morehead, Plainview, Tex., Pat Bailey, Austin, appellants. A. L. Crouch, Fort Worth, Joseph Calamia, El Paso, appellees. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 law, candidate condition having his name placed election.1 constitutionality subject this appeal three-judge 2 Appellee Pate met all qualifications May 2, 1970, County Commissioner Precinct Four Paso County, except he was $1,424.60 assessment primary. Wischkaemper Judge Tarrant but $6,300 candidacy office. wished General Land Office; application accompanied $1,000 fee.2 3 After being denied places ballots respective counties, appellees instituted separate actions challenging system. Their consolidated, convened pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 2284. Jenkins permitted intervene voter desire vote Wischkaemper, appellee Guzman others desiring cast Pate. On April 3, ordered participate conducted prepayment fees.3 hearing merits, court unconstitutional enforcement.4 1358 (N.D.Tex.1970). A direct taken under § 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction. Dies Carter, 403 904, 91 2208, 29 679. 4 absolute prerequisite candidate's participation election. There no procedure get way petitioning voters,5 votes elections public office.6 Any person willing able meets basic eligibility requirements holding run 5 Candidates most district, county, precinct offices county executive conducting primary; also determines amount fee. make estimate apportion various 'as just equitable.'7 committee's guided nomination made.'8 In counties populations one million more, two-year terms assessed up 10% aggregate annual salary, four-year 15% salary.9 smaller there percentage limitations.10 6 record shows case far exceptional magnitude.11 size plainly natural consequence burden financing rather than governmental unit, particularly heavy seeking involving primaries more closely regulated smaller. Representative range $150 $600, depending population sought.12 Senator maximum $1,000.13 nominations requiring including Governor United States Senator, chairman primary.14 Board Education have fixed $50.15 7 (1) 8 requirement limited mechanism creature legislative choice hence 'state action' within meaning Gray Sanders, 372 368, 83 801, 9 821 (1963); Nixon Herndon, 273 536, 47 446, 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927).16 emphasized occasions breadth power enjoyed determining manner exercised consistent See, e.g., Williams Rhodes, 393 23, 89 5, 21 24 (1968); Evans Cornman, 398 419, 90 1752, 26 370 (1970); Carrington Rash, 380 89, 85 775, 13 675 (1965). question presented whether law prevents due inability portion action unlawfully discriminates against so excluded wish support them.17 threshold resolved should shown basis,18 withstand rigid stancard review. 10 Harper Virginia Elections, 383 663, 86 1079, 16 169 (1966), held Virginia's imposition poll tax exceeding $1.50 residents over age denial equal protection. Subjecting close scrutiny, concluded placing even minimal price exercise right constituted invidious discrimination. problem same, course, determine strict standard review applied. 11 initial impact felt aspirants office, voters, heretofore attached fundamental status invoke rigorous review.19 However, rights do lend themselves neat separation; laws affect always at least theoretical, correlative effect voters. Of every limitation incidental voting stringent McDonald Election, 394 802, 1404, 22 739 (1969). place vote,20 nor quantitatively dilute been cast.21 Rather, creates barriers access ballot, thereby tending limit field might choose. existence compel scrutiny. Compare Jenness Fortson, 431, 554 (1971)With (1968). approaching restrictions, essential examine realistic extent nature 12 Unlike could expected fulfill own resources through modest contributions, very imposed gives patently exclusionary character. Many seekers lacking personal wealth affluent backers practical sense chosen party, matter how be, broad enthusiastic popular support. neither remote. Not substantially obvious likelihood would fall heavily less segment community, whose favorites may large To rely contributions order assessments, phenomenon hardly rate tends deny opportunity choosing; time names persons favor. dispute endemic This disparity based described reference discrete precisely defined segments community typical inequities Clause, doubtless instances representing views But ignore reality recognize well economic status. Because real appreciable franchise, related supporting particular candidate, conclude, Harper, found accomplishment pass constitutional muster. 14 (2) 15 statutes provide recognized ballot. U.S., 442, S.Ct., 1976; 32, 24. doing, understandably properly seeks prevent clogging machinery, avoid confusion, assure winner majority, strong plurality, voting, expense runoff elections.22 gauging enter unimpeded bound respect avoiding overcrowded ballots. Moreover, interest, duty, protect integrity processes frivolous fraudulent candidacies. 1976. 17 escape conclusion $8,900 entering primaries. conventional standards review, achieve totally means; criterion differing treatment bear relevance object legislation. Morey Doud, 354 457, 465, 77 1344, 1350, 1485 (1957); Smith Cahoon, 283 553, 567, 51 582, 587, 75 1264 (1931). say serious enough. relationship between willingness seriousness takes candidacy,23 affirmatively alleged unable, simply unwilling, contrary evidence. It uncontested exclude And assuming paying seriously, him 'serious candidate' sense. If intended weeding out spurious extraordinarily ill-fitted goal;24 valid interests available. 18 Instead arguing reasonableness exclusion appellants fact applicable point gain submitting proper petition.25 Apart crucial Texas,26 accept reasonable abandon affiliations burdens law. demonstrated present tool 19 addition State's purported serve relieve treasury objective; said lacks basis.27 consider case, showing necessity. strenuously urge apportioning feasible They argue will 'parties' nominating process, result new claims seem overlook similar distinction presently embodied since gubernatorial received 200,000 last preceding conduct elections.28 recently upheld distinguishing basis success prior supra. We persuaded faced impossible task purpose 20 reject theory availing appropriate share occasioned. force argument diluted generally lower although undoubtedly involve greater expense.29 More importantly, arise decide one, has, choice, directed held. Stae presumably course benefit reliance self-evident assume cost, taxpayers, ultimately burdened too late lesser part process shifted away taxpayers generally. financial carried two seems designed give influence stage spread attempt distribute regard wealth. Viewing myriad functions supported revenues, difficult single any higher levels bring forth desired fellow citizens govern. Without making husbanding fail see element necessity justify resulting incursion prerogatives (3) 23 failed establish requisite justification system, hold results protection laws. nothing herein doubt licensing contexts. By shoulder providing erected utilizes thus excluding otherwise denying undetermined choice. These salient features critical our determination invalidity. Affirmed. 25 POWELL REHNQUIST took consideration decision case. See Arts. 13.07a, 13.08, 13.08a, 13.15, 13.16 Election Code Ann., V.A.T.S. (Supp.1970—1971) notarized loyalty affidavit. respects eligible failure Carter's superfluous need additional defects deprive standing attack provided ultimate liability depend outcome action. Preliminary relief granted noncompliance requisites unrelated n. specific provisions listed 1, permit independent appear official containing petition submitted. eigible sign varies 1% 5% sought. For offices, obtain signatures ceiling 500 signatures. No same voted made Art. 13.50, Tex.Election Ann. (1967). 13.09(b), (Supp.1970—1971). Write-in run-off Ibid. Former 13.08c (repealed, Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1932, c. 723, 77) first either majority highest getters race votes, party's nominee primary, unless until paid had originally provision Members Congress. example, amounts 32% $19,700 salary County. Similarly, five Ward $6,250 fee; represented 76.6% $8,160 four offices; fifth Commissioner, 99.7% $6,270. Assessments excess common many assessments $5,000 several counties. Filing judgeships high. Persons noted, however, needed refunded refunds 50% 13,08a, subd. (Supp.1970—1971): Population Fee 650,000.......... 650,000 900,000......... $600 900,000 1,000,000....... $300 1,000,000 more.......... $500 clear face why larger sizes. An districts encompassing eight nine $25 per fixed-fee schedule more: *..... .... $ 300 ....... * joined constitute senatorial $250. district population. Less 5,000.......... 5,000 10,000.......... 10,000 40,000.......... 40,000 125,000......... 50 125,000 200,000........ 650,000........ $100 constituting exactly $200. Civil Appeals committee, year's salary. 13.08(4), ask reconsider scope Allwright, 649, 64 757, 88 L.Ed 987 (1944), Party Negroes action.' Terry Adams, 345 461, 73 809, 97 1152 (1953); cf. Condon, 286 73, 52 484, 76 984 (1932). aspect considered cognizable here concerned occasion Legislature enacted 'contingent, temporary law' modifying C. 11, H.B. 62d 1st Called Sess. (1971). allow submit 'signed running, percent entire governor territory . running.' (Art. 13.08c(b).) Act provides go into '(1) Supreme dispose (in case) before January 1972; affirms refuses aforesaid .' (§ 7(b)). expires December 31, 1972, goes back effect. gone absence change render moot. suspend enforcement during calendar year permanently below, injunction continue after Furthermore, continuing controversy appellees' obligation 1970. allowing stated liable did prevail take note Johnston Luna, 338 355 (ND Tex.1972), issued appealed Our attention confined us, intimate view merits controversy. Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 485, 1153, 1161, 491 McGowan Maryland, 366 420, 425—426, 81 1101, 1104—1105, (1961). Cf. Turner Fouche, 396 346. 362, 532, 541, 567 Snowden Hughes, 397, 497 (1944). (1966); Kramer Union Free School Dist. 15, 395 621, 1886, 583 (1969); Cipriano City Houma, 701, 1897, 647 Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 562, 84 1362, 1381, 506 (1964); Wesberry 376 526, 481 (1964). shall nominated receives cast. event receiving votes. 13.03, 13.07, 684—685, 1091, (Harlan, J., dissenting). 364, 542. stae true statewide, petition. 1363 (N.D.Tex.1970) (Thornberry, concurring). 27 674, 1085 (Black, 13.02, different approximated processing long thought cover is, document record.

Category: 1