American Party of Texas v. White Hainsworth v. White 8212 887, 72 8212 942
| Decision Date | 26 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 72,s. 72 |
| Parties | AMERICAN PARTY OF TEXAS et al., Appellants, v. Mark WHITE, Jr., Secretary of State of Texas. Robert HAINSWORTH, Appellant, v. Mark WHITE, Jr., Secretary of State of Texas. —887, 72—942 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 416 U.S. 1000, 94 S.Ct. 2414.
Texas laws involved in this litigation provide four methods for nominating candidates in a general election: (1) candidates of parties whose gubernatorial choice polled more than 200,000 votes in the last general election are nominated by primary election only, and the nominees of these parties automatically appear on the ballot; (2) candidates whose parties poll less than 200,000 votes, but more than 2% of the total vote cast for governor in that election are nominated by primary election or nominating conventions; (3) if the foregoing procedures do not apply, precinct conventions can, pursuant to Tex. Election Code, Art. 13.45(2) (Supp.1973), nominate candidates if the party is able, by notarized signatures, to evidence support by at least 1% of the total gubernatorial vote at the last preceding general election or (by a process to be completed within 55 days after the general May primary election) can produce sufficient supplemental petitions with notarized signatures (not including voters who have already participated in any other party's primary election or nominating process) to make up a combined total of the 1%; and (4) under Arts. 13.50 and 13.51, an independent candidate, regardless of the office sought, can qualify by filing within the time prescribed a petition signed by a certain percentage of voters for governor at the last preceding general election in a specified locality, the percentages varying with the offices sought (in this case 3% in a congressional district and 5% in a State Representative's district). In no event, are more than 500 signatures required of a candidate for any 'district office.' No voter, participating in any other political party nominating process or signing a nominating petition for the same office, may sign an independent's petition. Appellants, minority political parties and their candidates and supporters, and unaffiliated candi- dates, brought actions in the District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the Texas election laws, which they claimed infringed their associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and were invidiously discriminatory. They also challenged the practice of printing on absentee ballots only the names of the two major political parties and the State's failure to require printing minority party and independent candidates' names on absentee ballots and the exclusion of minority parties from the benefits of the McKool-Stroud Primary Financing Law of 1972, which provided for public financing from state revenues for primary elections of political parties casting 200,000 or more votes in the last preceding general election for governor. The District Court upheld the constitutionality of the State's election scheme. Held:
1. Article 13.45(2), which does not freeze the status quo but affords minority parties a real and essentially equal opportunity for ballot qualification, does not contravene the First and Fourteenth Amendments and is in furtherance of a compelling state interest. Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714. Pp. 776—788.
(a) The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid the requirement that small parties proceed by convention rather than primary election. The convention process has not been shown here to be invidiously more burdensome than the primary election, followed by a runoff election where necessary. Pp. 781—782.
(b) So long as the larger parties must demonstrate major voter support at the last election, it is not invidious to require smaller parties (which need make no such demonstration) to establish their position otherwise; and the 1% requirement (which two of the appellant parties were able to meet) imposes no insurmountable obstacle on a small party. Pp. 782—784.
(c) The bar against a person's signing a supplemental petition who has voted in a primary election or participated in a party convention is not unconstitutional, since he may choose to vote or to sign a nominating petition, but not to do both. Nor is it invidious to disqualify those who have voted in a primary from signing petitions for another party seeking ballot position for its candidates for the same offices, where that party had access to the entire electorate and an opportunity to commit voters on primary day. Cf. Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1. Pp. 785—786.
(d) The 55-day period provides sufficient time for circulating supplemental petitions and is not unduly burdensome, nor is the notarization requirement. Pp. 786—787.
2. The percentage provisions in Arts. 13.50 and 13.51 with the 500-signature feature are not unduly burdensome. Requiring independent candidates to evidence a 'significant modicum of support' is not unconstitutional, and the record here is devoid of any proof to support the claims of appellant independent candidates (who relied solely on the minimal 500-vote-signature requirement) that these requirements were impermissibly onerous. Pp. 788—791.
3. The challenged McKool-Stroud provisions are not unconstitutional, since they were designed to compensate for primary election expenses to which the major parties alone are subject; and, as the District Court correctly found, 'the convention and petition procedure available for small and new parties carries with it none of the expensive election requirements burdening those parties required to conduct primaries.' Moreover, the State is not obliged to finance the efforts of every nascent political group seeking ballot placement, like appellant American Party, which failed to qualify for the general election ballot. Pp. 791—794.
4. The District Court erred in sustaining the exclusion of minority parties from the absentee ballot. No justification was offered by appellees for not giving absentee ballot placement to appellant Socialist Workers Party, which satisfied the statutory requirement for demonstrating the necessary community support needed to win general ballot position for its candidates. Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 93 S.Ct. 854, 35 L.Ed.2d 36; O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524, 94 S.Ct. 740, 38 L.Ed.2d 702. Pp. 794—795.
No. 72—942, affirmed; No. 72—887, 349 F.Supp. 1272, affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
Gloria T. Svanas, Odessa, Tex., for appellants in No. 72—887.
Robert W. Hainsworth, Houston, Tex., for appellant in No. 72 942, pro se.
John L. Hill, Austin, Tex., for appellee.
These cases began when appellants, minority political parties and their candidates, qualified voters supporting the minority party candidates, and independent unaffiliated candidates, brought four separate actions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against the Texas Secretary of State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of various sections of the Texas Election Code.
The American Party of Texas sought ballot position at the general election in 1972 for a slate of candidates for various statewide and local officers, including governor and county commissioner.1 The New Party of Texas wanted ballot recognition for its candidates for the general election for governor, Congress, state representative and county sheriff. The Socialist Workers Party made similar claims with respect to its candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and United States Senator.2 Laurel Dunn, a nonpartisan candidate, at- tempted to run for the United States House of Representatives from the Eleventh Congressional District. In his action, he represented himself for other named independent candidates for state and local offices. Finally, Robert Hainsworth sought election as state representative from District No. 86.
In these actions, it was alleged that, by excluding appellants from the general election ballot, various provisions of the Texas Election Code infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and invidiously discriminated against new and minority political parties, as well as independent candidates. Appellants sought to enjoin the enforcement of the challenged provisions in the forthcoming November 1972 general election. They also challenged the failure of the Texas law to require printing minority party and independent candidates on absentee ballots and the exclusion of minority parties from the benefits of the McKool-Stroud Primary Law of 1972. The individual cases involving the parties in No. 72—887 were consolidated, and a statutory three-judge District Court was convened. Following a trial, the District Court denied all relief after holding that, in their totality, the challenged provisions served a compelling state interest and did not suffocate the election process. Raza Unida Party v. Bullock, 349 F.Supp. 1272 (WD Tex.1972). Hainsworth, appellant in No. 72—942, was also subsequently denied relief on similar grounds. Two separate appeals were taken, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 410 U.S. 965, 93 S.Ct. 1442, 35 L.Ed.2d 700. We affirm the judgment of the District Court in No. 72—942, and in No. 72—887, except as the latter relates to the Socialist Workers Party and Texas' absentee ballot provisions.
The State of Texas has established a detailed statutory scheme for regulating the conduct of political parties as it relates to qualifying for participation in the electoral process. Under the laws challenged in this case, four methods are provided for nominating candidates to the ballot for the general election. 3
Candidates of political parties whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nader v. Schaffer
...1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974); and American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974). These well established principles are applicable here. Ray v. Blair, supra, involved an Alabama primary e......
-
Duncan v. Husted
...more burdensome than the other." Id. (quoting Jenness, 403 U.S. at 440–41, 91 S.Ct. 1970 ; citing Am. Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 786–87, n. 18, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974) and Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 740, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974) ).II. SUMMARY JUDGMEN......
-
Casey v. Lewis, No. 91-16513
...24, 77, 94 S.Ct. 2655, 2682, 41 L.Ed.2d 551 (1974) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (right to vote); American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 780, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1305-06, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974) (freedom of association). The Supreme Court has held, however, that courts must employ a less exa......
-
Canaan v. Abdelnour
...who had been affiliated with a qualified party within one year prior to the primary election. In American Party of Texas v. White (1974) 415 U.S. 767, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744, the court upheld a state election scheme which, inter alia, required independent candidates to demonstrate a ......
-
Pruning the political thicket: the case for strict scrutiny of state ballot access restrictions.
...note 63, at 113 (stating that the Court retreated dramatically in Jenness"). (86) Jenness, 403 U.S. 442. (87) 415 U.S. 724 (1974). (88) 415 U.S. 767 (89) Storer, 415 U.S. at 726-27. Independent congressional, presidential and vice-presidential candidates essentially challenged two effects o......
-
Structuring judicial review of electoral mechanics: explanations and opportunities.
...v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982); Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979); Am. Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (3) E.g., First Nat'l Ba......
-
List of Cases Referenced
...will remain as the initial point of deliberations for many years to come. LIST OF CASES REFERENCED American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)Bellis v. United States, 94 S.Ct. 2179 (1974)Berry v. Cincinnat......
-
'NO RIGHT IS MORE PRECIOUS': COMMON GOOD SOLUTIONS TO BALLOT ACCESS JURISPRUDENCE.
...note 16, at 216. (137.) Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974). (138.) Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974). (139.) See Am. Party v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 780-81 (140.) Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 188 (1979) (Blackmun J., concurring). (141.) Id. at 188......