Court Opinion

ID: 9517038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:01:56.956729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:07.991153
License: Public Domain

BROOKS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
While the majority correctly characterizes the issue in this case as the reasonableness of the challenged election statute [Kentucky Revised Statute § 118.130(3)] as applied to independent candidates, I respectfully dissent from their conclusion on this question. In addition, while I am in accord with the majority’s observations on the role of the federal judiciary and the extreme caution which must be exercised in approaching questions of the Constitutional validity of legislative enactments, nevertheless, when a legislative enactment goes beyond reasonable bounds and gives unfair advantage to one group of individuals over another, protection of solemn Constitutional guarantees requires judicial consideration and, if necessary, protection of these Constitutional rights. These types of Constitutional controversies cannot simply be relegated to the political arena. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 5-7, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208-237, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).
Election statutes such as K.R.S. § 118.130(3) which require independent candidates to file nomination papers months before a primary election have been recognized as making it more difficult for independent candidates than for candidates affiliated with established political parties to get their names on the ballot for a general election, and also undermining the effectiveness of voters who wish to elect independent candidates, Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358, 366, 89 S.Ct. 1101, 22 L.Ed.2d 336 (1969); Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 570, 89 S.Ct. 817, 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969) [Whitley v. Williams], and have been held to be constitutionally unreasonable. Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 290 F.Supp. 983, 989 (1968) (Three-Judge Court); and see Judge Johnson’s dissenting opinion in Hadnott v. Amos, 295 F.Supp. 1003 at 1014 (1968) (Three-Judge Court), majority reversed on other grounds in 394 U.S. 358, 89 S.Ct. 1101, 22 L.Ed.2d 336 (1969) .
I can find no compelling state interest in requiring an independent candidate to file nomination papers fifty-five days before a primary election in which he cannot run and which is seven months before the general election is to be held. There are obvious reasons why this requirement is necessary for candidates of recognized political parties who wish to run in the primary election, however, the statute as applied to independent candidates is constitutionally unreasonable.