Anderson v. Quinn, Civ. No. 80-0176 P.

• Decision Date: 11 August 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 80-0176 P.
• Parties: John B. ANDERSON, Stephen P. Kelley, James D. Harrington, and Gerald M. Eisenstat, Plaintiffs, v. Rodney S. QUINN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Maine, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

495 F. Supp. 730

John B. ANDERSON, Stephen P. Kelley, James D. Harrington, and Gerald M. Eisenstat, Plaintiffs, v. Rodney S. QUINN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Maine, Defendant.

Civ. No. 80-0176 P.

United States District Court, D. Maine.

August 11, 1980.

D. Brock Hornby, Perkins, Thompson, Hinckley & Keddy, Portland, Me., Mitchell Rogovin, George T. Frampton, Jr., Ronna Lee Beck, Rogovin, Stern & Huge, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.

Paul F. Macri, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of the Atty. Gen., Augusta, Me., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT

GIGNOUX, District Judge.

Congressman John B. Anderson is an independent candidate for President of the United States in the November 1980 general election. He declared his independent candidacy on April 24, 1980. In this action Anderson and three of his supporters¹ challenge the constitutionality of a Maine statute, 21 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 494(9), which requires an independent candidate for President of the United States to file a nominating petition with the Secretary of State of Maine by April 1, 1980—181 days prior to the date when political parties are required to certify their nominees for Presidential electors to the Secretary of State and 217 days before the November 4, 1980 general election.² The statutory filing deadline prevents the placement of Anderson's name on the November ballot as an independent candidate for President. Anderson and his supporters charge that, as a result, the filing deadline impermissibly burdens their constitutional rights to associate for the advancement and expression of political beliefs and effectively to exercise their franchise for the Presidential candidate of their choice, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and invidiously discriminates against plaintiffs and others similarly situated, denying them the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.³ Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that 21 Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 494(9) is unconstitutional, null and void as applied to independent candidates for President, or alternatively as applied to the independent candidacy of Congressman Anderson. Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant Secretary of State of Maine⁴ from enforcing the filing deadline against Anderson, and a reasonable attorney's fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Jurisdiction is properly asserted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3) and 2201, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The matter is before the Court on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and a stipulation of facts. The legal issues have been comprehensively briefed and argued.

For the reasons to be stated, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted.

I

The significant facts may be briefly summarized. Until April 24, 1980 Congressman Anderson was an active candidate for nomination by the Republican party for President of the United States. On April 24, 1980, he announced his independent candidacy for President. Subsequent to that date his supporters gathered the number of signatures of registered Maine voters required by Maine law for nominating petitions to place Anderson's name on the general election ballot in November and submitted them to municipal registrars for certification by 5:00 p. m., June 5, 1980, as required by 21 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 494(8). On June 9, the first working day after the last of the certified petitions were received from the municipal registrars, the nominating petitions, containing approximately 6,000 certified signatures, were tendered to the office of the Secretary of State, together with the consent forms required by 21 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 495. The state officials rejected the petitions and consent forms on the sole ground that they were not timely filed under 21 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 494(9). Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, while rejecting the petitions as untimely, the state officials accepted custody of them and have processed them in accordance with the usual procedures. The Secretary of State has determined that, apart from their noncompliance with the April 1 filing deadline, the nominating petitions and consent forms comply with the requirements of Maine law and contain a sufficient number of signatures to qualify Anderson for placement on the general election ballot in November. The parties agree that Anderson would have been certified as an independent candidate for President and placed on the general election ballot, but for the April 1 filing deadline prescribed by 21 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 494(9).

II

The Supreme Court has firmly established that "restrictions on access to the ballot burden two distinct and fundamental rights, `the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively.'" Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) (quoting Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968)). The Court has also repeatedly held that substantial burdens on these rights are invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and under the Equal Protection Clause unless essential to serve a compelling state interest. Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, supra; American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 780-81, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1305-06, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 729, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1278, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974); Williams v. Rhodes, supra, 393 U.S. at 31, 89 S.Ct. at 10. And, in its most recent ballot access decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that "`even when pursuing a legitimate interest, a State may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty,' Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 58-59 94 S.Ct. 303, 308, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973), and we have required that States adopt the least drastic means to achieve their ends." Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, supra, 440 U.S. at 185, 99 S.Ct. at 991.

The restriction on an independent Presidential candidate's access to the ballot imposed by Maine's April 1 filing deadline substantially burdens the associational and franchise rights of independent candidates and their supporters, and also effects an invidious discrimination. An independent candidate must decide to run as an independent, gather sufficient certified signatures, and file with the Secretary of State by April 1. In practice, the deadline bars an otherwise viable independent candidate from the Maine general election ballot solely because he decides to run after April 1. Maine imposes no similar burden on party candidates for the Presidency. Maine does not require party candidates for President to qualify or declare their candidacies by any particular date, and permits the names of party Presidential electors to be certified to the Secretary of State as late as September 30.⁵ Clearly, then, Maine's April 1 filing deadline as applied to independent candidates for the Presidency places a substantial and unequal burden on them.

Only a compelling state interest can justify the substantial and unequal burden imposed by Maine's April 1 filing deadline upon independent candidates for President.⁶ Yet the State has failed to show any compelling interest, or even a rational justification, for the April 1 filing deadline. The State does not contend that Congressman Anderson has failed to satisfy the State's interest in keeping a frivolous candidate off the ballot by assuring that he is a serious candidate with a significant level of support, the state interest the Supreme Court has most frequently recognized as justifying ballot access restrictions. See, e. g., Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, supra, 440 U.S. at 184-85, 99 S.Ct. at 990-91; American Party of Texas v. White, supra, 415 U.S. at 782 n.14, 94 S.Ct. at 1306 n. 14; Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 715, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 1319, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974); Jenness v. Fortson, supra note 6, 403 U.S. at 442, 91 S.Ct. at 1976. Nor does the State assert that an April 1 filing deadline is required to provide adequate time to verify petitions and print ballots, another state interest which has been recognized by the courts. See, e. g., Salera v. Tucker, 399 F.Supp. 1258, 1267 (E.D.Pa. 1975), aff'd, 424 U.S. 959, 96 S.Ct. 1451, 47 L.Ed.2d 727 (1976). Rather, Maine maintains that two other state interests are served by the restriction imposed by the April 1 filing deadline.

First, the State claims that the filing deadline advances "the State's interest in treating all candidates within the State's practical power to regulate equally." The State's assertion is that it cannot regulate the manner in which party Presidential candidates are selected because of the Supreme Court's decision in Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 95 S.Ct. 541, 42 L.Ed.2d 595 (1975), and that therefore the filing deadline can be justified because it treats equally all candidates within the State's power to regulate. This argument borders on the frivolous. Plainly, the burdens imposed on independent Presidential candidates must be compared with those imposed on other candidates for the same office, not with candidates for other offices who are elected through an entirely different process.⁷

The second interest asserted by the State is "the State's . . . interest in the protection of the integrity of the independent route to the ballot." The State's position is that it has a valid interest in assuring that independent candidates are indeed independent, and therefore in preventing an unsuccessful party candidate from pursuing a second route to the general election ballot. See Storer v. Brown, supra, 415 U.S. at 733, 94 S.Ct. at 1280. In effect, the State argues that the April 1 filing deadline acts as a disaffiliation requirement to prevent...