Goldstein v. Sec'y of the Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 17 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | SJC-12931 |
| Citation | 484 Mass. 516,142 N.E.3d 560 |
| Parties | Robert GOLDSTEIN & others v. SECRETARY OF the COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert G. Jones, Boston, for the plaintiffs.
Anne Sterman, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
Thomas O. Bean & James D. Henderson, Boston, for Ranked Choice Voting 2020 Committee, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.
On April 8, 2020, the plaintiffs, each of whom seeks to be a candidate for elective office in the primary election scheduled for September 1, 2020, brought an emergency petition in the county court, seeking relief under G. L. c. 214, § 1, and G. L. c. 231A, § 1. They requested a declaration that, in light of the emergency circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the signature requirements in G. L. c. 53, §§ 7 and 44 (minimum signature requirements), to be listed on the ballot for a party's nomination pose an "unconstitutionally severe burden on the fundamental rights" of all Massachusetts would-be candidates. They seek, by means of this declaration, to eliminate the minimum signature requirements for the September 1 primary election. In the alternative, they asked for various forms of equitable relief, such as substantially reducing the number of required signatures of certified voters, extending the applicable filing deadlines, and permitting electronic signatures, as a means of remedying the constitutional violation. A single justice of this court reserved and reported this petition to the full court.
The plaintiffs do not contend that the minimum signature requirements in §§ 7 and 44 are facially unconstitutional; that is, they do not contend that these requirements unduly burden the constitutional right of a candidate to seek elective office in ordinary times. Rather, they contend that these requirements, when applied in these extraordinary times of a declared state of emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, create an undue burden on a prospective candidate's constitutional right to seek elective office.
The Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) agrees that, "as a practical matter, application of the signature requirements in the context of the current public health crisis imposes a greater than usual burden on [the plaintiffs], triggering heightened scrutiny." The Secretary also agrees that, in this time of pandemic, the justification for the current signature requirements cannot survive this scrutiny, and that this court must craft a remedy for this constitutional violation. We also agree, and fashion equitable relief intended to substantially diminish that burden, while respecting the legislative purpose for imposing minimum signature requirements.
In short, for all candidates seeking to appear on the State primary ballot on September 1, we order three forms of relief. First, we order that the number of required signatures be reduced by fifty percent (50%). Second, we extend the deadlines for candidates running for State district and county offices to submit their nomination papers to local election officials for certification and for the filing of certified nomination papers with the Secretary to May 5, 2020, and June 2, 2020, respectively, which are the current due dates for party candidates running for Federal and Statewide offices. Third, subject to the restrictions outlined later in this opinion, we order the Secretary to allow the submission and filing of nomination papers with electronic rather than wet-ink original signatures ("wet" signatures). We emphasize that the declaration we make and the equitable relief we provide is limited to the primary election in these extraordinary circumstances, which is the sole subject of the case before us, and does not affect the minimum signature requirements for the general election this year or for the primary elections in any other year.3
Background. 1. Ballot access. This year, 2020, is an election year in Massachusetts for certain Federal,4 State,5 and county offices.6 The State primary election, in which candidates affiliated with the various political parties (Democratic, Green-Rainbow, Libertarian, and Republican) are nominated to run for the offices at issue, is currently scheduled for September 1, 2020. See Secretary of the Commonwealth, A Candidate's Guide to the 2020 State Election, at 5 (rev. Feb. 2020) (2020 Candidate's Guide). The general election, in which the party nominees will compete against one another as well as against any nonparty candidates for the offices on the ballot, is scheduled for November 3, 2020. See id.
The three plaintiffs aspire to appear on the State primary election ballot in September in an effort to secure their respective party's nominations for three different Federal and State offices. Robert Goldstein seeks to be the Democratic Party's nominee for the office of United States representative for the Eighth Congressional District in Massachusetts. Kevin O'Connor seeks the Republican Party's nomination for the office of United States senator. Melissa Bower Smith aspires to be the Democratic Party's nominee for the office of State representative for the Fourth Norfolk District.
a. Minimum signature requirements. To appear on the ballot, candidates like the plaintiffs are required by statute to, among other things, submit nomination papers containing a minimum number of certified voter signatures.7 See G. L. c. 53, § 44. The number of certified signatures required differs depending on the office the candidate is seeking. Id. For example, a candidate like O'Connor, seeking election as a United States senator, must secure 10,000 certified voter signatures. Id. A candidate like Goldstein, seeking election as a representative to the United States Congress, requires 2,000. Id. And a candidate seeking election as a State representative, like Smith, must obtain 150. Id.8
b. Certified signatures. To qualify as "certified," a signature must be of a voter registered in the geographic area corresponding to the office for which the candidate is seeking nomination. See G. L. c. 53, § 7. In addition, if the candidate is seeking the nomination of a particular political party, as is the case with the plaintiffs, the voter must be registered with the same party or as "unenrolled," meaning registered to vote, but with no party affiliation.9 See G. L. c. 53, § 37 ; 2020 Candidate's Guide, supra at 13. Accordingly, for a candidate like O'Connor, seeking the Republican Party nomination for United States senator, a Statewide office, signatures may be secured from voters registered anywhere in Massachusetts as either Republicans or unenrolled. For a candidate like Goldstein or Smith, seeking the Democratic Party nomination to represent a specific district in Massachusetts, the signatures must be from voters registered in that district as either Democrats or unenrolled.
c. Nomination papers. The process for obtaining and certifying the required number of signatures commences when the Secretary prepares the nomination papers and furnishes them to candidates. See G. L. c. 53, § 47. This year, the nomination papers were furnished on February 11, 2020.10 Before obtaining any signatures, candidates must fill in the top of the nomination papers with certain information, including their name, address, and party affiliation (if any), and the office they are pursuing. See G. L. c. 53, § 8. The candidates, or others working on their behalf, must then gather voter signatures on the nomination papers or on "exact copies" of such forms. See G. L. c. 53, § 17. Voters are required to sign the nomination papers "in person as registered or substantially as registered" (emphasis added). G. L. c. 53, § 7. The Secretary interprets this combination of requirements, that the voter sign "in person" on the original nomination papers or on "exact copies" thereof, to mean that the signatures eventually submitted and filed must be original handwritten or "wet" signatures. However, "any voter who is prevented by physical disability from writing may authorize some person to write his or her name and residence in his or her presence." Id. Voters also must indicate the address where they are currently registered on the nomination papers. Id.
d. Certification and filing deadlines. The statutorily driven timeline that follows the receipt of the nomination papers from the Secretary has two major deadlines, which can differ depending on the office a candidate is pursuing. The first is the deadline by which the candidate must submit the nomination papers to local election officials for certification. At least twenty-eight days before the deadline for the submission of the certified nomination papers to the Secretary, the candidates must submit their nomination papers to local election officials in each city and town where the individuals who signed the papers are registered to vote.11 See G. L. c. 53, §§ 7, 46. For a candidate like Smith, pursuing a seat as a State representative, this deadline falls on or before April 28, 2020. For candidates like O'Connor and Goldstein, seeking Federal offices, this deadline falls on or before May 5, 2020.
Applying regulations promulgated by the Secretary, see 950 Code Mass. Regs. § 55.03(1) (2004),12 local election officials then review each signature on the nomination papers. See G. L. c. 53, §§ 7, 46. Signatures can be disallowed for a variety of reasons, including that the voter is not registered at the address provided, the voter's name as signed does not match the voter's name as registered, the voter's signature or address is illegible, the voter is enrolled in the wrong party, or the voter's signature already appeared on the candidate's nominating papers. See 950 Code Mass. Regs. § 55.03(1). Due to the potential for the disallowance of numerous signatures, prudent candidates collect more signatures than are required, see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehab., & Pub. Safety v. Hobbs
...only a small portion of their twenty-month window to collect signatures.¶62 Petitioners’ reliance on Goldstein v. Secretary of Commonwealth , 484 Mass. 516, 142 N.E.3d 560 (2020) is misplaced. There, prospective candidates for elected office requested the court eliminate Massachusetts's sta......
-
Meyer v. Jacobsen
...391, 478 P.3d 825.¶34 Meyer cites three out-of-state cases to support his interpretation of the UETA: Goldstein v. Sec. of the Commonwealth , 484 Mass. 516, 142 N.E.3d 560 (2020) ; Benjamin v. Walker , 237 W.Va. 181, 786 S.E.2d 200 (2016) ; and Anderson v. Bell , 234 P.3d 1147 (Utah 2010). ......
-
Lyons v. Sec'y of the Commonwealth
...The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. See Goldstein v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 484 Mass. 516, 522, 142 N.E.3d 560 (2020).9 See Secretary of the Commonwealth, 2020 Early Voting & Vote by Mail Statistics, https://www.sec.state.ma.us/......
-
Libertarian Party of Conn. v. Merrill
...In Massachusetts, the signature requirement for primary petitions was reduced by 50%. See Goldstein v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 484 Mass. 516, 530, 142 N.E.3d 560 (Sup. Jud. Ct. 2020). However, in that case, the period for collecting signatures was 83 days, in contrast to the 218 days......
-
Problem Solving During the Pandemic: How Massachusetts Has Provided Access to the Courts and to Justice During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
...COVID-19); Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. XXX. (56.) See Desrosiers v. Governor, 158 N.E.3d 827, 843 (Mass. 2020). (57.) Id. at 839. (58.) 142 N.E.3d 560 (Mass. (59.) See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 53, [section][section] 7, 44 (2019). (60.) See Goldstein, 142 N.E.3d at 571. (61.) See id. at 571. (62.) I......