Libertarian Party of Tenn. v. Goins
| Decision Date | 20 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:08–00063.,3:08–00063. |
| Citation | 793 F.Supp.2d 1064 |
| Parties | LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF TENNESSEE, Anthony Wall, Green Party of Tennessee, Kathleen A. Culver, Constitution Party of Tennessee, and Joan Castle, Plaintiffs,v.Mark GOINS, Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee, and Tre Hargett, Secretary of State for the State of Tennessee, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREWest CodenotesHeld UnconstitutionalWest's T.C.A. § 2–1–104(a)(29, 30).
Darrell L. Castle, Germantown, TN, James C. Linger, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiffs.
Janet M. Kleinfelter, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Nashville, TN, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Libertarian Party of Tennessee (“LPT”), Anthony Wall, Green Party of Tennessee (“GPT”), Kathleen A. Culver, Constitution Party of Tennessee (“CPT”), and Joan Castle, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Defendants: Mark Goins, the Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee, and Tre Hargett, the Secretary of State for the State of Tennessee. Plaintiffs are political parties and their members seeking recognition and ballot access in Tennessee's state and national elections. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' complaint is that certain provisions of Tennessee's ballot access statutes systematically discriminate against minor political parties and their members by effectively excluding minor parties from achieving statewide recognition and ballot access in violation of their First Amendment rights to vote, to express their political speech and to associate as a political party. Plaintiffs' specific contention is that given Tennessee's historical experiences with minor political parties and the combined effects of these statutes' party membership requirement for petition signatures, the requirement of 2.5% of the total vote in the last gubernatorial election for recognition as a statewide political party and the Defendants' policy setting a deadline for party recognition petitions of 120 days before the primary election, effectively bar minor political parties from ballot access in Tennessee elections. Plaintiffs also assert an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment that in some provisions for ballot access in Tennessee do not impose the same requirements of Tennessee's Democratic and Republican parties. Plaintiffs seek a declaration to eliminate these statutory requirements and the 120 days deadline, but Plaintiffs did not seek any preliminary injunctive relief, nor did Plaintiffs request an expedited ruling.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 22) and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 21). The parties have completed discovery in this action.
In their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs contend, in sum, that the undisputed facts establish that Tennessee's electoral statutes, specifically Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 2–1–104(a)(14), 2–1–104(a)(29), 2–1–104(a)(30), 2–1–114, 2–13–201(a) and 2–13–202, are unduly burdensome to minor political parties and effectively preclude minor political parties from electoral participation. Plaintiffs' specific challenges are: (1) that Section 2–1–104(a)(30)'s requirement of disclosure of voter signatories' party membership on new political party's petition for ballot access unduly burdens Plaintiffs' and Tennessee voters' First Amendment rights; (2) that Section 2–1–104(a)(29)'s alternative requirement of 2.5% of the total vote in the last gubernatorial election for ballot access violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights; (3) that the State's requirement that a new or minor political party file its petition for recognition as a statewide party and ballot access 120 days before the August primary election is unduly burdensome to minor political parties' First Amendment rights; and (4) that the State's recognition of a new political party lasts for only one year effectively precludes minor political parties. Plaintiffs contend that these collective requirements under Tennessee laws on ballot access and State election officials' deadline policy are unduly burdensome and violate their First Amendment rights to vote, the Tennessee voters' rights to vote and the privacy of their political affiliation and Plaintiffs' right to associate as a political party under Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedents.
In response, Defendants argue only that the Plaintiffs' expert's statements and opinions about Tennessee's electoral statutes precluding minor party participation, should not be considered by the Court because those opinions are unreliable and irrelevant. In their response, Defendants do not address Plaintiffs' other arguments in their motion for summary judgment.
Yet, in their motion for summary judgment, Defendants contend, in essence: (1) that Plaintiffs LPT and GPT lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of Tennessee's electoral statutes as only CPT has actually sought recognition from State officials; (2) that the “membership” provision of Tennessee's political party registration statute, as applied, does not violate Plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of association and expression because the Defendants do not enforce those provisions; (3) that the 2.5% requirement for ballot access in Tennessee as a statewide political party is valid under the First Amendment given the State's legitimate interest in viable statewide political organizations with a distinctive political character; (4) that Plaintiffs lack proof that the 120 day deadline adversely impacted them; (5) that to eliminate the statute's requirement of a primary for certain offices gives minor political parties preferential treatment from an otherwise reasonable state regulation; and (6) that the party membership signature requirement, coupled with Tennessee's petition filing deadline, is valid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that LPT and GPT have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee electoral statutes. Plaintiffs assert that the Secretary of State's office hindered efforts to collect signatures by refusing to review a minor party's petition for acceptable language until the requisite signatures were submitted. Plaintiffs were, in fact, unable to secure the requisite number of signatures for statewide recognition. In Plaintiffs' view, the Defendants' failure to enforce the necessity of party membership for voters who sign recognition petitions does not save this statute from its constitutional infirmity. In sum, Plaintiffs reiterate that the combined effects of Tennessee's party membership requirement for petition signers, the 2.5% requirement, the 120 filing deadline for new and minor political parties render these Tennessee's election statutes and policy unconstitutional.
As a threshold issue, the Court concludes that Defendants' contention to exclude the affidavit and report of Plaintiffs' expert, Richard Winger, lacks merit. Much of Winger's expert report and affidavit contain historical facts that are reliable and subject to verification. Defendants do not challenge the accuracy of Winger's historical data. Winger's testimony as an expert has been accepted in numerous ballot access actions, as reflected on his curriculum vitae. Significantly, the Sixth Circuit cited similar data presented by Winger in Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579, 589 (6th Cir.2006). Thus, the Court considers Winger's affidavit.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court first concludes that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment should be granted. Based upon the applicable law and the undisputed facts, the Court concludes that all Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the statutes at issue here. Second, based upon the undisputed historical facts and controlling precedents, the Court concludes that Section 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. Third, based upon the historical record of Tennessee elections and Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedents, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that these Tennessee's 2.5% requirement in Section 2–1–104(a)(29), coupled with the party membership requirement in Section 2–1–104(a)(30) and the State's 120 day deadline for new political parties, effectively preclude minor political party participation in state and national elections in Tennessee. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied.
For their contentions, Plaintiffs cite the history of minor parties' participation in national and state elections in Tennessee. In 1889, when state governments started printing ballots, minor political parties appeared on the ballot in every presidential and congressional election year in virtually all states. (Docket Entry No. 36, Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts at ¶ 3). From 1889 until 1961, any new or minor political parties seeking to be listed on the general election ballot in Tennessee had to nominate candidates by a convention, and notify Tennessee election officials to have their nominees placed on the November election ballot. Id. at ¶ 4. Prior to 1961, minor political parties appeared regularly on the Tennessee ballot. In 1960, the Tennessee ballot listed four political parties, Democratic, Republican, Constitution, and Prohibition. Id. at ¶¶ 1–2.
In 1961, the Tennessee legislature amended the State's election laws to allow only political parties that had either polled 10 percent in the last election or that submitted a petition signed by 5% of the vote cast in the last election to appear on the Tennessee ballot. Id. at ¶ 5. Since the 1961 amendme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leifert v. Strach
...taken substantive steps to obtain ballot access under the contested statutory provisions. See, e.g., Libertarian Party of Tenn. v. Goins, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1077 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) (reviewing Supreme Court precedent on the issue). For example, in Storer v. Brown, the Supreme Court found t......
-
Green Party of Tenn. v. Tre Hargett in His Capacity Sec'y of State
...that is set forth below.A. History of this Litigation 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) requiring membership to sign a minor party's recognition petition vio......
-
Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett
...action is another in a series of actions challenging Tennessee's ballot access laws. In the first action, Libertarian Party of Tennessee v. Goins, 793 F.Supp.2d 1064 (M.D.Tenn.2010), this Court held that the Tenn.Code Ann. § 2–1–104(a)(30) requiring party membership to sign a minor party's ......
- U.S. v. Shull