Nelson v. Warner

• Citation: 477 F.Supp.3d 486
• Decision Date: 10 August 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-0898
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Parties: Dakota NELSON ; Belinda Biafore, individually and as Chairperson of the West Virginia Democratic Party ; Elaine A. Harris, individually and as Chairperson of the Kanawha County Democratic Executive Committee; West Virginia Democratic Party ; and West Virginia House Legislative Committee, Plaintiffs, v. Mac WARNER in his official capacity as West Virginia Secretary of State; and Vera McCormick, in her official capacity as Clerk of Kanawha County, West Virginia, and all ballot commissioners for the state of West Virginia, Defendants.

477 F.Supp.3d 486

Dakota NELSON ; Belinda Biafore, individually and as Chairperson of the West Virginia Democratic Party ; Elaine A. Harris, individually and as Chairperson of the Kanawha County Democratic Executive Committee; West Virginia Democratic Party ; and West Virginia House Legislative Committee, Plaintiffs,

v.Mac WARNER in his official capacity as West Virginia Secretary of State; and Vera McCormick, in her official capacity as Clerk of Kanawha County, West Virginia, and all ballot commissioners for the state of West Virginia, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-0898

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division.

Signed August 10, 2020

Anthony J. Majestro, Powell & Majestro, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiffs.

Curtis R. Capehart, John Mercer Masslon, II, Jessica Anne Lee, West Virginia Attorney General's Office, Charleston, WV, for Defendant Mac Warner.

Michael W. Taylor, Samuel M. Bloom, Bailey & Wyant, Charleston, WV, for Defendant Vera McCormick.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This suit challenges the constitutionality of West Virginia's Ballot Order Statute, which mandates that ballots for partisan offices list first the party whose presidential candidate received the most votes in the last election. Following the parties’ bench trial, the Court must now weigh the extent to which the Statute burdens the plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights against the state's asserted interests. Finding the state's interests insufficient to justify the burdens created by the Statute, the Court now declares the Ballot Order Statute unconstitutional, enjoins the defendants from enforcing it, and orders the defendants to implement a constitutional ballot ordering system for future elections, including the November 2020 general election.

I. BACKGROUND

The West Virginia legislature enacted the state's Ballot Order Statute in 1991. Stips. ¶ 22, ECF No. 106-2. The Statute provides:

The party whose candidate for president received the highest number of votes at the last preceding presidential election is to be placed in the left, or first column, row or page, as is appropriate to the voting system. The party which received the second highest vote is to be next and so on. Any groups or third parties which did not have a candidate for president on the ballot in the previous presidential election are to be placed in the sequence in which the final certificates of nomination by petition were filed.

W. Va. Code § 3-6-2(c)(3). Election officials have interpreted "highest number of votes" to refer to votes in West Virginia, not nationwide. Therefore, ballots for the upcoming November general election will list Republican Party candidates first because most West Virginian voters supported Donald Trump in 2016.

The plaintiffs, all of whom are affiliated with the Democratic Party, argue candidates listed first on a ballot benefit from a human tendency to choose the first candidate in a list of names. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 25, ECF No. 7. Because of this "primacy effect," the plaintiffs argue the Ballot Order Statute gives certain candidates a significant advantage over others based solely on partisan affiliation.¹ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–3. Count One alleges the Ballot Order Statute is an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the Statute dilutes votes for candidates whose political party is not favored by the Statute. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36–42. Count Two alleges the Statute constitutes disparate treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because the Statute treats one major political party (and its candidates, members, constituencies, and supportive voters and organizations) differently from the other major party by granting an electoral advantage based solely on the party's performance in the last presidential election. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43–47. The essence of these claims is that, through the Statute, the state puts its thumb on the scale in partisan elections to benefit a favored political party. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. The plaintiffs ask the Court to declare the Ballot Order Statute unconstitutional, enjoin the defendants from enforcing it, and require the defendants to use a ballot ordering system that gives similarly situated major-party candidates an equal opportunity for the ballot to list them first. Am. Compl. 17.

The first individual plaintiff is Dakota Nelson, a resident of Huntington, Cabell County, West Virginia. Stips. ¶ 1; Trial Tr. 89, ECF Nos. 119–22. He is registered to vote as a Democrat and is a member of the Democratic Party. Stips. ¶ 1; Tr. 89. Nelson was a Democratic candidate in the 2018 general election for District 16 of the West Virginia House of Delegates, which is a three-delegate district.² Tr. 92; Pls.’ Ex. 8, at 4, ECF No. 104-9. The ballot listed him last out of six candidates, and he lost the election. Tr. 90; Pls.’ Ex. 8, at 4. Nelson ran again for District 16 in the June 2020 primary and was nominated. Stips. ¶ 2. He will appear on the November 2020 ballot with three Republicans and two other Democrats who are also running for District 16. Stips. ¶ 4; Tr. 89–90.

The second individual plaintiff is Belinda Biafore. She is a registered Democrat and resident of Fairmont, Marion County, West Virginia. Stips. ¶ 6. She has been a member of the Democratic Party in West Virginia for over forty-four years and an active supporter of the Democratic Party for over fifty years. Stips. ¶ 6. She is the Chairperson of the West Virginia Democratic Party and previously served as Vice Chairperson, as a member of the Executive Committee, and in several leadership roles for the West Virginia Federation of Democratic Women. Stips. ¶ 6; Tr. 70. She regularly supports Democratic candidates in state elections and intends to vote for Democrats in the upcoming November election. Stips. ¶ 6.

Elaine Harris is the third individual plaintiff. She did not testify at trial, but the parties stipulated to the following. She is a registered Democrat and resident of Kanawha County, West Virginia. Stips. ¶ 7. She has been a member and active supporter of the Democratic Party in West Virginia for many years. Stips. ¶ 7. She currently serves as Chairperson of the Kanawha County Democratic Executive Committee. Stips. ¶ 7. Harris regularly supports Democratic candidates in West Virginia elections and intends to vote for Democratic Party candidates in the upcoming general election. Stips. ¶ 7.

The plaintiffs also include two organizations. The West Virginia Democratic Party is a state political party as defined by West Virginia Code §§ 3-1-8 and 3-8-1a(30). Stips. ¶ 9. Party members include all registered Democrats in the state, including those running in the upcoming general election. Stips. ¶ 10. The Party's mission is to elect Democratic candidates across West Virginia, and it has nominated approximately one hundred candidates who will appear on the ballot in November. Stips. ¶¶ 10, 11; Tr. 70–71. The West Virginia Democratic House Legislative Committee is the West Virginia Democratic Party's caucus campaign committee for the House of Delegates as defined by West Virginia Code § 3-8-1a(6). Stips. ¶ 12. The Legislative Committee is comprised of the forty-one Democratic members of the House of Delegates. Stips. ¶ 13; Tr. 52. Its mission is to elect its members and other Democratic candidates to the House of Delegates. Stips. ¶ 13; Tr. 52. Twenty-eight Legislative Committee members are running for reelection in November against Republican challengers.³ Stips. ¶ 13; Tr. 53–55.

The Court has adjudicated this case on an expedited schedule because the ballot order for the November election must be set on August 25. W. Va. Code § 3-6-2(d)(2) ; Stips. ¶¶ 21, 35. The plaintiffs filed their operative Amended Complaint on January 6, 2020. On March 17, the Court denied defendant Clerk of Kanawha County Vera McCormick's motion to dismiss. Mem. Op. and Order, ECF No. 28. On June 30, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the defendant class of all county ballot commissioners in West Virginia and designated McCormick as the class representative. Mem. Op. and Order, ECF No. 75. The Court denied McCormick's and defendant Secretary of State Mac Warner's motions for summary judgment on July 15. Mem. Op. and Order, ECF No. 87. The defendants argued the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this suit and that this case involves a nonjusticiable political question, but the Court rejected these arguments. The bench trial occurred in Huntington on July 27 through 30. Because this proceeding was a bench trial, the Court must weigh the evidence, determine witnesses’ credibility, and find the facts. United States v. Bales , 813 F.2d 1289, 1293 (4th Cir. 1987).

II. STANDING

Before arriving at the case's merits, the Court must answer the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. The defendants have unsuccessfully challenged the plaintiffs’ standing at every stage of this litigation. In denying the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the Court held that Nelson, the Democratic Party, and the Legislative Committee demonstrated direct standing based on harm to their electoral prospects.⁴ Mem. Op. 4–10, ECF No. 87. The Court also held the Democratic Party demonstrated associational standing on behalf of Nelson. Id. at 14–15. Relying on the evidence at trial, the Court reaches the same conclusions here with the addition that the Legislative Committee has associational standing on behalf of its members who are running in contested races in the November election.

A. Legal Standard

Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. "For a legal dispute to qualify as a genuine case or controversy, at least one plaintiff must have standing to sue." Dep't of Commerce v. New York , ––– U.S. ––––, 139...