Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett
| Decision Date | 03 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:11–0692. |
| Citation | 882 F.Supp.2d 959 |
| Parties | GREEN PARTY OF TENNESSEE Constitution Party of Tennessee, Plaintiffs, v. Tre HARGETT in his official capacity as Tennessee Secretary of State, and Mark Goins in his official capacity as Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Held Unconstitutional
West's T.C.A. §§ 2–1–104(a)(24), 2–1–104(a)(29)(B), 2–5–208(d)(1), 2–13–107(d), 2–13–202
Unconstitutional as Applied
West's T.C.A. §§ 2–5–101(a)(1, 2), 2–13–201(a)Alan P. Woodruff, Johnston City, TN, Darrell L. Castle, Darrell Castle & Associates PLLC, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiffs.
Janet M. Kleinfelter, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Nashville, TN, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Green Party of Tennessee (“GPT”), and Constitution Party of Tennessee (“CPT”), filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Defendants: Tre Hargett, Tennessee Secretary of State, and Mark Goins, Tennessee's Coordinator of Elections. Plaintiffs are political parties seeking recognition and ballot access for their candidates in federal and state elections. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' complaint is that certain provisions of Tennessee's recently enacted ballot access statutes effectively exclude minor political parties from achieving recognition as a political party and ballot access for their candidates in violation of their First Amendment rights to vote, to express their political speech and to associate as a political party. Plaintiffs also assert a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the State's preferential placement of certain party's candidates on the ballot.
Plaintiffs' specific claims are: (1) that Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 2–5–101(a), 2–1–104(a)(24) and 2–3–107(a) effectively deny Plaintiffs the ability to qualify as a “Recognized minor party” and impose impermissible burdens on Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to associate as a political party; (2) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–1–104(a)(24)'s requirements for a “Recognized minor party” are unconstitutionally vague and constitute an improper delegation of undefined legislative authority to State election officials; (3) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–5–101(a)(1) setting a 119 day deadline for minor political parties' petitions for ballot access for its candidates, approximately four months prior to the primary, is unconstitutional as a matter of law; (4) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–13–202, requiring minority political parties to nominate their candidates for statewide offices by primary elections, intrudes upon Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to select their nominees and to control their internal affairs; and (5) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–5–208(d)(1), awarding a preferential position on the ballot to the current majority party, discriminates against Plaintiffs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This action is a sequel to an earlier action, Libertarian Party of Tennessee v. Goins, 793 F.Supp.2d 1064 (M.D.Tenn.2010), holding that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–1–104(a)(30) violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to vote, Tennessee voters' First Amendment right to privacy of their political affiliation, and Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to associate as a political party. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs demonstrated that Tennessee's 2.5% requirementin Section 2–1–104(a)(29), coupled with the party membership requirement in Section 2–1–104(a)(30) and the State's election officials' 120 1 day deadline prior to the August primaries for petitions of new political parties, effectively precluded minor political party participation in state and national elections in Tennessee.2 The Defendants did not appeal that decision, but the Tennessee General Assembly enacted changes to the State's ballot access laws that are at issue in this action.
Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment supported by their expert's report contending, in sum:
(1) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–1–104(a)(24) defining a “Recognized minor party” as a party supported by 2.5% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election, imposes impermissible burdens on Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to associate as a political party;
(2) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–1–104(a)(24), is unconstitutionally vague and constitutes an improper delegation of undefined authority to State election officials;
(3) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–5–101(a)(1) setting a 119 day deadline prior to the August primaries for minor political parties' petitions for recognition and ballot access for its candidates effectively excludes Plaintiffs and is unconstitutional as a matter of law;
(4) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–13–107(d) barring minor political parties from using the terms “Nonpartisan or Independent” in their party's names violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights of free speech;
(5) that State election forms for candidates requiring signatories to a party nominee's petition to declare that the signatories are members of that party violates Plaintiffs' and voters' First Amendment rights to privacy of political beliefs; and
(6) that Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–5–208(d)(10), awarding preferential position on the ballot to the State's majority political party, discriminates against Plaintiffs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(Docket Entry Nos. 19 and 20).
In response, Defendants submit affidavits of experts, as well as state and local election officials, contending that these state laws serve the following state interests:
“(1) requiring potential candidates to show some minimum level of support of their candidacy by the electorate; (2) halting the waste and confusion that might otherwise result from a lack of that showing; (3) avoiding disruption of the ballot and election preparation process; (4) assuring honest elections; and (5) avoiding disruption of ongoing voter education, poll worker training, and impending responsibilities to assure ballot accuracy and timely distribution of absentee ballots.”
(Docket Entry No. 36, Defendants' Memorandum at 15). Defendants also contend with the prior ruling in Goins that the res judicata doctrine precludes Plaintiffs' challenge to the state law requiring political parties to select candidates for all statewide offices by primaries. D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green Party of Tenn. v. Tre Hargett in His Capacity Sec'y of State
...cue’ that violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights as well as the First Amendment rights of Tennessee voters.” Green Party, 882 F.Supp.2d at 1016, 2012 WL 379774, at *52. The court based its conclusion largely on two empirical studies, one of which found “ ‘that ballot order effects, par......
-
Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett
...amended the State's ballot access laws that gave rise to a second action.In the second action, Green Party of Tennessee v. Hargett, 882 F.Supp.2d 959 (M.D.Tenn.2012) (“Green Party I” ), Plaintiffs challenged Tennessee's amended ballot access statutes affecting minority political parties and......
-
Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett
...953 F. Supp. 2d 816 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (Green Party II ), vacated by, Green Party V, 767 F.3d 533; Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett, 882 F. Supp. 2d 959 (M.D. Tenn. 2012) (Green Party I), reversed by Green Party IV, 700 F.3d at 816.2 1. This Case (2011 Case) The legal issues presented in this......
-
Erard v. Johnson
...between Michigan's ballot-access requirements and those in Tennessee that have been recently-enjoined. Green Party of Tennessee v. Hargett, 882 F.Supp.2d 959 (M.D.Tenn.2012). The similarities, however, are not strong. First, Tennessee's signature-quantity requirement is significantly higher......