Court Opinion

ID: 9704168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:25:14.335381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:58.055717
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It must be conceded that the state has an interest in setting reasonable requirements for those who wish to become candidates in a statewide primary. As stated in Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1970):
“There is surely an important state interest in requiring some preliminary showing of a significant modicum of support before printing the name of a political organization’s candidate on the ballot— the interest, if no other, in avoiding confusion, deception, and even frustration of *750the democratic process at the general election.”
On the other hand, a statutory scheme which gives an unequal weight to the votes of citizens depending upon the geographical area of the state where they live is discriminatory and unconstitutional, Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969). ’
In my opinion, I.C. 1971, 3-1-9-19, is both unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Communist Party v. State Board of Elections, State of Illinois, 518 F.2d 517 (7 Cir. 1975), supports this conclusion. Although the statutory schemes involved in the two cases are not identical, they are analogous and may not be legally distinguished.
Under the Indiana statutory scheme, the power of voters within a geographical area comprising 10/nths of the state’s population may be totally diluted by the fact that the remaining Vnth of the state’s population may not have sufficient voters in support of a candidate to comply with the statutory minimum.
In sum, the statute gives the voters in one congressional district an absolute power over the nomination of a Presidential candidate regardless of the fact that that candidate may have overwhelming support with a majority of the voters in the other ten congressional districts of the state. Thus, there is a denial of equal protection and due process guaranteed to the voters of the State of Indiana by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Admitting the state interest in protecting the integrity of its political processes, due process, nonetheless, requires that the state accomplish that end narrowly and fairly to avoid obstructing and diluting the fundamental right to vote effectively. Briscoe v. Kusper, 435 F.2d 1046 (7 Cir. 1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). Since, here, a statewide primary is involved there can be no legitimate state interest in requiring a minimum number of voters’ signatures from each congressional district. See Moore v. Ogilvie, supra, 394 U.S. at 818-19, 89 S.Ct. 1493.