Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett

• Citation: 791 F.3d 684
• Decision Date: 02 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–5435.,14–5435.
• Parties: GREEN PARTY OF TENNESSEE; Constitution Party of Tennessee, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Tre HARGETT, in his official capacity as Tennessee Secretary of State; Mark GOINS, in his official capacity as Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

791 F.3d 684

GREEN PARTY OF TENNESSEE; Constitution Party of Tennessee, Plaintiffs–Appellees

v.Tre HARGETT, in his official capacity as Tennessee Secretary of State; Mark GOINS, in his official capacity as Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 14–5435.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 2, 2015.

ON BRIEF:Janet M. Kleinfelter, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Alan P. Woodruff, Arden, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before: COLE, Chief Judge; COOK and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

COLE, Chief Judge.

This is another challenge to Tennessee's statutes that provide ballot access for minor political parties. Two minor parties—the Green Party of Tennessee and the Constitution Party of Tennessee—brought suit challenging these statutes under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on all claims. Defendants appeal the grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs.

This appeal presents four issues: (1) whether Tennessee's ballot-access scheme for “recognized minor parties” unconstitutionally burdens plaintiffs' First Amendment rights; (2) whether Tennessee's requirements for “recognized minor parties” to retain ballot access violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) whether Tennessee's loyalty-oath requirement for “recognized minor parties” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) whether the district court properly awarded plaintiffs a 50% fee enhancement. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

This is another case in a series of cases challenging Tennessee's ballot access statutes for minor political parties. See Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett, 767 F.3d 533 (6th Cir.2014) (hereinafter Green Party V ); Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett, 700 F.3d 816 (6th Cir.2012) (hereinafter Green Party IV ); Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett, 7 F.Supp.3d 772 (M.D.Tenn.2014) (hereinafter Green Party III ); Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett, 953 F.Supp.2d 816 (M.D.Tenn.2013) (hereinafter Green Party II ), vacated and remanded, 767 F.3d 533 ; Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett, 882 F.Supp.2d 959 (M.D.Tenn.2012) (hereinafter Green Party I ), rev'd and remanded, 700 F.3d 816.

A. History of Tennessee Ballot–Access Laws

Before May 23, 2011, Tennessee recognized only one type of political party on the state's ballot, a “statewide political party,” which was defined in the Tennessee Code as:

(A) A political party at least one (1) of whose candidates for an office to be elected by voters of the entire state in the past four (4) calendar years has received a number of votes equal to at least five percent (5%) of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election of governor; or

(B) For one (1) year after petitioning successfully, a political party which has a membership equal to at least two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election of governor as shown by petitions to establish a political party filed with the coordinator of elections and signed by registered voters as members of the party and certified as to registration of the signers by the county election commissions of the counties where the signers are residents.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–1–104(a)(30)(A) (2009) & (2010). A statewide political party was automatically entitled to have its candidates identified on the ballot by their party affiliation. Green Party V, 767 F.3d at 543–44. Any new party that wished to be classified as a statewide political party had to gather the signatures of registered voters equal to or greater than 2.5% of the total votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent gubernatorial election. Id. § 2–1–104(a)(30)(B) (2009); see also Green Party IV, 700 F.3d at 819.

In 2011, the Tennessee General Assembly amended the ballot-access statutes to create a new type of political party, a “recognized minor party.”

(24) “Recognized minor party” means any group or association that has successfully petitioned by filing with the coordinator of elections a petition which shall conform to requirements established by the coordinator of elections, but which must at a minimum bear the signatures of registered voters equal to at least [2.5%] of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election of governor ...

Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–1–104(a)(24) (2011). In the spring of 2012, Tennessee again amended its ballot-access statutes, requiring recognized minor parties to satisfy the requirements of a statewide political party in order to maintain their status as a recognized minor party beyond the current election year:

(f) If a petition filed pursuant to this section is determined to be sufficient by the coordinator of elections ..., such party shall be recognized as a minor party for all remaining primary and general elections in the current year. To maintain recognition beyond the current election year, a minor party must meet the requirements of a statewide political party as defined in § 2–1–104. A recognized minor party who fails to meet such requirements shall cease to be a recognized minor party. Such party may regain recognition only by following the procedures for formation of a recognized minor party....

Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–13–107(f) (2012).

B. Tennessee's Current Ballot–Access Laws

Under Tennessee's current system, political parties can obtain ballot access either as a statewide political party or a recognized minor party. “Statewide political party” is defined as

a political party at least one (1) of whose candidates for an office to be elected by voters of the entire state in the past four (4) calendar years has received a number of votes equal to at least five percent (5%) of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election of governor.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–1–104(a)(30) (2014). Once a party qualifies as a statewide political party, it is automatically placed on the ballot each succeeding year for four years. Id.

For a minor party to be placed on the ballot, it must qualify as a recognized minor party by obtaining the signatures of registered voters equal to or greater than 2.5% of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the last gubernatorial election. Id. § 2–1–104(a)(23) (“the ballot-access statute”). Additionally, “no political party may have nominees on a ballot or exercise any of the rights of political parties ... until its officers have filed on its behalf with the secretary of state and with the coordinator of elections” an affidavit under oath stating that it does not advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence and is not affiliated with any organization that advocates such a policy. Id. § 2–1–114 (2014).

To maintain its status as a recognized minor party, at least one of the recognized minor party's candidates for statewide office must receive votes totaling at least 5% of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the last gubernatorial election. Id. § 2–13–107(f) (2014) ( “the ballot-retention statute”). If none of the minor party's candidates meets that threshold, it has to re-qualify as a recognized minor party to regain access to the ballot. Id.

C. Procedural History

As a result of prior litigation, plaintiffs' candidates were on the 2012 ballot (a non-gubernatorial election year) with their parties' respective names. Green Party I, 882 F.Supp.2d at 1019. However, plaintiffs' candidates did not receive enough votes for plaintiffs to maintain their recognized minor party status by qualifying as a statewide political party and lost their continued ballot access in future elections. In order to regain access to the ballot, plaintiffs must again collect the signatures of registered voters equal to or greater than 2.5% of the total number of votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election.

As a result of losing their status as recognized minor parties, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 10, 2013, challenging various sections of the Tennessee Code. Plaintiffs brought several claims: (1) that the ballot-access statute, Section 2–1–104(a)(23),¹ and the ballot-retention statute, Section 2–13–107(f), jointly impose an unconstitutional burden on minor parties seeking status as recognized minor parties in violation of the First Amendment; (2) that the ballot-retention statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring recognized minor parties to meet the 5% requirement in one year, but allowing statewide political parties to meet the same requirement in four years; and (3) that Section 2–1–114 violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by requiring a minor or new political party to file an affidavit stating that the party does not advocate the overthrow of local, state, or national government by force or violence before its nominees are placed on the ballot.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on March 14, 2014, the district court held that the challenged sections of the Tennessee Code were unconstitutional and enjoined the defendants from enforcing them. The district court held that the ballot-access and ballot-retention statutes, alone and in combination, unduly burdened plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to create and develop their political party by securing ballot access for their candidates. The district court further concluded that the ballot-retention statute violated plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying plaintiffs the same four calendar years afforded to statewide political parties to secure automatic ballot access for...