Coffield v. Kemp
| Decision Date | 19 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-13277.,09-13277. |
| Citation | 599 F.3d 1276 |
| Parties | Faye COFFIELD, Jason Crowder, Beatrice Williams, PlaintiffsAppellants, v. Brian KEMP, in his official capacity as Georgia Secretary of State and Chairperson of the Georgia State Election Board, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Gary Sinawski, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Stefan Ernst Ritter, Calandra A. Harps Atlanta, GA, for Handel.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS Circuit Judges, and BARBOUR, * District Judge.
Appellant-Plaintiff Coffield sought access to the 2008 general election ballot as an independent candidate to represent Georgia's Fourth Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. She was not on the ballot. Briefly stated, she was unable to collect a sufficient number of signatures to satisfy Georgia's requirement that an independent candidate submit a nomination petition signed by at least 5% of the total number of registered voters eligible to vote in the last election for the position the candidate seeks. Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-170. This appeal presents one issue: whether the district court erred when it dismissed Coffield's constitutional challenge for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). We conclude it did not.
Coffield claims that Georgia's 5% rule is too burdensome; she alleges no independent candidate for the House of Representations in Georgia has met the requirement since 1964 and that no minor party candidate has ever met it. But she does not allege how many candidates have tried. According to the Complaint, Coffield's own petitioning effort resulted in about 2000 signatures, less than 1% of the eligible pool and about 13, 000 signatures short of what the rule required.
Our Court and the Supreme Court have upheld Georgia's 5% rule before. See Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct 1970, 1974-76, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971) (); Cartwright v. Barnes, 304 F.3d 1138, 1140-42 (11th Cir.2002); see also Swanson v. Worley, 490 F.3d 894, 910 (11th Cir.2007) (). The pertinent laws of Georgia have not changed materially since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green Party of Ga. v. Kemp
...Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971) ; Cartwright v. Barnes, 304 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir.2002) ; and Coffield v. Kemp, 599 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.2010) to again conclude that Georgia's ballot petition requirements were not unconstitutional and that therefore Plaintiffs had n......
-
Green Party of Ga. v. Kemp
...Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971) ; Cartwright v. Barnes, 304 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir.2002) ; and Coffield v. Kemp, 599 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.2010), to again conclude that Georgia's ballot petition requirements were not unconstitutional and that therefore Plaintiffs had ......
-
Cowen v. Raffensperger
...detail below.Since Anderson, the Eleventh Circuit has issued decisions approving Georgia's 5% signature requirement. See Coffield v. Kemp, 599 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2010) ; Cartwright v. Barnes, 304 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2002). But each of those cases is distinguishable on grounds central to ......
-
Cooper v. Raffensperger
...regulatory interests were sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory burdens imposed by the laws); see also Coffield v. Kemp, 599 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding Georgia's 5% rule and noting that the state's pertinent laws had not changed materially since Jenness ). As ......
-
Resolving the Ambiguity: How Cowen v. Ga. Sec'y of State Helps Third Parties Climb Georgia's Steep Mountain of Ballot-access Restrictions
...Id. 40. Id.41. Id.42. See infra section C.43. 304 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2002).44. Id. at 1139.45. Id. at 1140-41.46. Coffield v. Handel, 599 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir. 2010). 47. Id.48. In 2002, the existence of the Anderson test had been the controlling authority for over twenty years, and ......