Moore v. Martin, No. 15-3558 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseMark Moore and two others filed suit against the Arkansas Secretary of State, challenging certain Arkansas statutes that set the filing deadline for individuals who wish to appear on the general election ballot as independent candidates. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the filing deadline is unnecessarily early and thus violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Secretary from enforcing this deadline against Moore. The district court granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and denied Moore's motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that the district court correctly noted that the March 1 filing deadline for independent candidates imposes a burden "of some substance" on Moore's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that Arkansas has a compelling interest in timely certifying independent candidates for inclusion on the general election ballot. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in determining that there was no genuine dispute of material fact whether the March 1 deadline is narrowly drawn to serve that compelling interest. In this case, there exists a genuine factual dispute whether the verification of independent candidate petitions would conflict with the processing of other signature petitions under the former May 1 deadline. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Arkansas Election Law. The district court did not err in determining that the March 1 filing deadline for independent candidates posed a burden "of some substance" on plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the state has a compelling interest in timely certifying independent candidates for inclusion on the general ballot; however the court erred in concluding there was no genuine dispute of material fact whether the March 1 deadline is narrowly drawn to serve that compelling interest; on this record, there exists a genuine factual dispute whether the verification of independent candidate would conflict with the processing of other signature petitions if the former May 1 deadline were used; remanded for further proceedings. Chief Judge Smith, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.