Legal Document

415 U.S. 709 94 Supreme Court Reporter 1315 39 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 702 Donald Paul LUBIN, etc., Petitioner,v.Leonard PANISH, Registrar-Recorder, County of Los Angeles. Number 71—6852. Argued Oct. 9, 1973. Decided March 26, 1974. Syllabus Petitioner, an indigent, was denied nomination papers to file as a candidate for the position Supervisor in California because, although otherwise qualified, he unable pay filing fee required all candidates by statute. He brought this class action Superior writ mandate against Secretary State and claiming that statute, requiring but providing no other way securing access ballot, deprived him others similarly situated equal protection guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment rights expression association First Amendments. The mandate; Appeal also writs. Held: Absent reasonable alternative means ballot access, may not, consistent with constitutional standards, require from indigent fees cannot pay; denying person right solely because inability fixed fee, without any means, is not reasonably necessary accomplishment State's legitimate interest maintaining integrity elections. Pp. 712—719. Reversed remanded. Marguerite M. Buckley, Venice, Cal., petitioner. Edward or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Gaylord respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari consider petitioner's claim statute payment $701.60 order be placed on primary election Supervisor, while him, situated, Amendment. 2 Elections Code provides forms congressional, state, county offices are issued only upon prepayment nonrefundable fee. (Cal.Elections § 6551. Generally, at percentage salary office sought. Senator, Governor, state some offices, 2% annual salary. Candidates Representative Congress, Senator Assemblyman, judicial district attorney, must 1%. No presidential primary, which either more than $600 annually. §§ 6551, 6552, 6554. 3 Under statutes effect time suit commenced, ranged $192 Assembly, $425 Angeles Board Supervisors, $850 $982 Governor. 4 counting write-in votes subject certain conditions. 18600 et seq. (Supp.1974.) Write-in counted, however, unless desiring files statement Registrar-Recorder least eight days prior election, 18602, pays requisite 18603. latter section '(n)o name written county, city, city shall counted . (t)he Section 6555 paid when declaration candidacy filed ..' Thus, contested satisfied even under procedures. 5 Petitioner commenced February 17, 1972, petitioning Registrar-Recorder. behalf petitioner those persons who were desired nominated public office. In his complaint, maintained citizen voter had sought membership Supervisors County.1 asserted 15, appeared James S. Allison, then Angeles, apply secure proposed candidacy. requested orally writing would-be Supervisors. 6 6, 1972. alleged serious candidate, fee; evidence taken during hearing. found 'reasonable, matter law.' Accordingly, court made attempt determine whether charged purpose, fees, addition deterring frivolous candidates, prohibited entering their names ballot. rejected argument Bullock versus Carter, 405 134, 92 849, 31 (1972), provide did discriminate basis economic factors. 7 On second petition Appeal, Second District, 22, after deadline nomination, passed, third application mandate. 8 Historically, since Progressive movement early 20th century, there has been steady trend toward limiting size 'concentrate attention electorate selection much smaller number officials so afford voters opportunity exercising discrimination use franchise.'2 This desire limit variously phrased minimize confusion, Thomas Mims, 317 F.Supp. 179, 181 (S.D.Ala.1970), runoff elections, Spillers Slaughter, 325 550, 553 (M.D.Fla.1971), curb 'ballot flooding,' Jenness Little, 306 925, 927 (N.D.Ga.1969), appeal dismissed sub nom. Matthews 397 94, 90 820, 25 81 (1970), prevent overwhelming voting machines—the modern counterpart flooding, Wetherington Adams, 309 318, 321 (NDFla.1970). A majority have long form fee,3 part administrative costs. 9 sharp contrast fear unduly lengthy increasing pressure broader progressive thought first half century concerned restricting achieve rationality, recent decades enlarged demand expansion political opportunity. Twenty-fifth Amendment, Twenty-sixth Voting Rights Act 1965, 79 Statutes-at-Large 437, 42 KF62 1973 seq., reflect shift emphasis. There gradual enlargement Amendment's provision area rights: 10 'It established years Equal Protection Clause confers substantive participate qualified whenever adopted electoral process determining will represent segment population. See, e.g., Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 12 506; Kramer Union School 395 621, 89 1886, 23 583; Dunn Blumstein, 330, 336, 995, 999, 274.' San Antonio District 11 Rodriguez, 411 1, 59 n. 2, 93 1278, 1310, 36 16 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring). principle flows naturally our recognition 13 '(l)egislators elected voters, farms cities interests. As ours representative government, legislatures instruments government directly people, elect legislators free unimpaired fashion bedrock system.' 562, 1382 (1964) (Warren, C.J.). 14 present case draws these two achieving effective, system into apparent conflict presents question how accommodate increased imperative protecting recognized dangers ballots listing many undermine giving majority. stated oath assets income legally eligible Since affidavit indigency states resources earned whatever it would appear make same $1, $100, $700. accepts true defends statutory keep being overwhelmed nonserious arguing indigents intended test pocketbook extent support hence seriousness 15 (1972),4 we keeping its within manageable, understandable limits highest order. Id., 144—145, 856. role underscored importance component total special function assure fragmentation choice minimized. That served, frustrated, procedure tends regulate candidates. inviting permitting every himself measuring candidate's motivation rational choices difficult tend impede process. device can conjured eliminate does state's effort such possible. 'laundry list' discourage participation confuse frustrate do too obvious call extended discussion. testing given open debate; fundamental limited prospects not. Rational results framework likely reached if single list dozen aspirants relatively unknown success. 17 interest, achieved unfairly unnecessarily burden minority party's individual equally important continued availability interests involved merely parties candidates; assert preferences through both broad weighed balance. party place entitled intertwined voters. 18 '(T)he vote heavily burdened cast one clamoring ballot.' Williams Rhodes, 393 23, 31, 5, 11, 21 24 (1968). 19 mean 'heavily burdened' It expected hopes find comes near reflecting policy contemporary issues. assured liking qualifying constitutionally measured dollars. 20 Bullock, supra, expressly validity sole 'seriousness': 'To say requirement enough. well relationship between willingness takes candidacy, affirmatively they unable, simply unwilling, assessed contrary evidence. uncontested excluded If Texas weeding out spurious extraordinarily ill-fitted goal; protect valid available.' U.S., 145—146, 857. (Emphasis original.) (Footnotes omitted.) 22 Filing however large, themselves, genuineness aspirant large serve manageable but, standing alone, spurious. wealthy remotest chance check. Merchants entrepreneurs known run public. noted prohibitive effectively exclude Conversely, moderate, here, impecunious prevented running. Even day high-budget campaigns demonstrated direct contact thousands 'walking tours' route Whatever mood time, tradition hospitality regard status. absence gaining inevitably renders exclusionary aspirants. noted, absolute, alternative, condition, failure meet disqualification running chosen elections operate potentially them coming before Selection ability hold pay. holding, note well-known 'seriousness' measure probability attracting significant neutral fact may, example, impose minor precondition demonstrating existence quantum petitions signed voted election. See American Party White, 767, 1296, 744. Similarly, establishes demonstrate persuading substantial sign behalf.5 point, course, genuinely all, requirements. Fortson, 403 431, 439, 91 1970, 1974, 29 554 (1971). California's met standard. remanded further consideration inconsistent opinion. 26 ordered. 27 DOUGLAS, concurring. 28 While & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join Court's wish add few words, my view clearly controlled decisions applying wealth discriminations. classifications based 'traditionally disfavored,' Harper Virginia Bd. Elections, 383 663, 668, 86 1079, 1082, 169 (1966), show compelling conditioning stand. (1972). began looking closely poor criminal area. Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), de facto denial Illinois purchase transcript defendants 'can justice where kind trial man gets depends amount money has.' 19, 591. Douglas California, 372 353, 83 814, 811 (1963), drawn 'an unconstitutional line rich poor' allowed appellate decide indigent's merits counsel appointed argue court. Just recently could extend prison term fine, length confinement turn one's 399 235, 2018, i6 586 (1970); see Tate Short, 401 395, 130 But defined boundaries discriminations struck down. Boddie Connecticut, 371, 780, 113 (1971), courts divorce due process; Brennan concurrence preferred rest result protection. And relied Lindsey Normet, 56, 79, 862, 877, finding Oregon's double-bond appealing forcible entry detainer actions discriminated poor: 'For them, practical matter, foreclosed, meritorious be.' 30 Indeed, scrutinized wide variety areas. Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 633, 1322, 1330, 600 (1969), migrating permissible objective. Closer us here Turner Fouche, 396 346, 362—364, 532, 542, 567 Georgia ownership land qualification board education. Free Dist., 583 (1969); Cipriano Houma, 701, 1897, 647 (1969). poll tax violative poor's exercise franchise. invalidated virtually indistinguishable presented here. What today thus involves new principle, nor novel application. '(A) man's mere property status, more, used test, qualify, States.' Edwards 314 160, 184, 62 164, 172, 119 (1941) (Jackson, right.* 667, 1079; 561—562, 1381, 506 (1964). empty arbitrarily deny stand satisfy allows effecitvely prevents own class. Such sham, held minorities off 10, treated differently. 32 BLACKMUN, whom REHNQUIST joins, concurring part. 33 For me, difficulty realistic whose impossible prescribed 34 proper suggested opinion, ante, 718, procedure, acceptable alternative. Prior 1968, this, paid. incorporated year, Laws chapter 3, now 18603(b) Code. addition, amendment, serves appears severable. Frost Corporation Comm'n, 278 515, 525—526, 49 239, 73 483 (1929); Truax Corrigan, 257 312, 341—342, 124, 133, 66 254 (1921). itself severability. Cal.Elections 48. That, issue deicde. 35 insofar presently stricken, Code, before, permit presence perfect, surely ease obtaining signatures short time. Storer Brown, 724, 738—746, 1274, 1283—1287, 714. seemingly reject accepting alternatives. view, satisfies demands most I, therefore, reversing remanding proceedings. governing body County, California. four years, $35,080. Croly, Democracy 289 (1914). Comment, Constitutionality Qualifying Fees Political Candidates, 120 U.Pa.L.Rev. 109 detailed description each filing-fee completely resolve attack patently violate traditional concepts. Cf. Rosario Rockefeller, 410 752, 760, 1245, 1249, (1973); Strange, 407 128, 2027, (1972); Rinaldi Yeager, 384 305, 1497, 577 (1966). flat $50 plus pro rata share costs get Tex.Election Article 13.07a (Supp.1974). assessment sums high $8,900. adequate requirement. realities process, strongly suggest 'access' via falls far terms having allow affluent put paying relegated provision, forced chances remember take affirmative step disparity would, itself, give rise questions and, need issue, intimation constitute alternative' dubious best. * 'No precious country voice laws which, good citizens, live. Other rights, basic, illusory undermined.' Wesberry Sanders, 376 526, 535, 481 federal Federal Constitution declares Members House should 'chosen Year People several States'; Seventeenth says Senators 'elected people.' historically 'retained people' virtue Ninth included penumbra rights. 756, 1291, 714, 'The derives core protected infringement Amendment.' (Dissenting opinion.)

Classification Label: 1