Jerry M. Blevins v. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/02/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1090581 J e r r y M. B l e v i n s v. B e t h Chapman, S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal MURDOCK, from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-09-900003) Court Justice. J e r r y M. B l e v i n s a p p e a l s f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t against him and i n favor o f S e c r e t a r y the Montgomery Circuit entered o f S t a t e B e t h Chapman b y C o u r t on h i s c o m p l a i n t challenging the 1090581 constitutionality affirm of § 12-17-20(b)(16), t h e summary is located F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l i s an a t t o r n e y r e s i d i n g i n the 19th J u d i c i a l Circuit consists within the c i r c u i t each county for for of Elmore, that Blevins County. qualifications requirement a resident to i n Elmore Circuit. Autauga, by a r e s i d e n t The and for Chilton judges of that meets judgeship i n § 12-17-20(b)(16), of C h i l t o n 19th Judicial Counties; -- o n e f o r county. County. a l l the no. A l a . Code As s e c r e t a r y 3 election except 1975, t h a t of s t a t e , t a k e n t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t B l e v i n s ' s name c a n n o t be for inclusion on t h e b a l l o t Section the he b e Chapman certified as a c a n d i d a t e i n 2010 f o r t h e no. 3 c i r c u i t j u d g e s h i p b e c a u s e he i s a r e s i d e n t o f E l m o r e Chilton Itis candidacy has not which i s the c i r c u i t judgeship designated Blevins run County, i n t e n d s t o r u n i n t h e 2010 j u d g e s h i p n o . 3, w h i c h Chilton We History there are three c i r c u i t t o be f i l l e d undisputed 1975. judgment. I. Blevins A l a . Code County, County. 12-17-20(b)(16), A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "There shall be three circuit judges i n the nineteenth j u d i c i a l c i r c u i t . The j u d g e occupying judgeship No. 1 shall be a r e s i d e n t of Elmore C o u n t y , t h e j u d g e o c c u p y i n g j u d g e s h i p No. 2 s h a l l b e 2 1090581 a resident of Autauga County, and the judge occupying judgeship No. 3 s h a l l be a r e s i d e n t o f C h i l t o n County. A p e r s o n q u a l i f y i n g as a c a n d i d a t e for e l e c t i o n to a judgeship under t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n s h a l l be a r e s i d e n t o f t h e c o u n t y f o r t h e j u d g e s h i p t h e p e r s o n s e e k s f o r a p e r i o d o f n o t l e s s t h a n one y e a r p r i o r t o t h e d a t e t h e p e r s o n q u a l i f i e s as a c a n d i d a t e f o r e l e c t i o n t o t h e o f f i c e and t h e r e a f t e r during h i s or her tenure i n o f f i c e . " Blevins of state, filed seeking contending that this action against declaratory and § 12-17-20(b)(16), Chapman, as injunctive A l a . Code secretary relief 1975, v i o l a t e s t h e E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment United States entitled Constitution to stand judgeship as a and t h a t , candidate therefore, i n t h e 2010 no. 3 o f t h e 1 9 t h J u d i c i a l Circuit. m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l of court and to the he s h o u l d be election for After cross- ruled i n favor Chapman. II. "Our review Standard of Review of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenges enactments i s de n o v o . So. 2 d 690 (Ala. 2001)." n.3 (Ala. See J e f f e r s o n Richards 2001). 3 to legislative County v. R i c h a r d s , v. I z z i , 805 819 S o . 2 d 2 5 , 29 1090581 III. Blevins circuit 1975, in notes that f o r which he 19th J u d i c i a l j u d g e must have i s elected his election i n such c i r c u i t during Circuit, requirement f o r i n § 1 2 - 1 7 - 2 2 , A l a . Code "Each c i r c u i t 12 m o n t h s p r e c e d i n g reside residency judges i n Alabama i s p r o v i d e d the c i r c u i t the the general which p r o v i d e s : least Analysis or appointed f o r at o r a p p o i n t m e n t and must h i s continuance unlike resided the other in office." In 15 in circuits A l a b a m a t h a t i n c l u d e more t h a n one c o u n t y , c i r c u i t j u d g e s must be r e s i d e n t s resident of the county of a county w i t h i n residents a l l three for a seat seat is j u d i c i a l seats § but that not just Blevins notes are permitted i n order t o be a that to vote candidate of the county f o r which the the county-residency requirement designated. circuit United Circuit one m u s t be a r e s i d e n t Blevins Equal they hold, the c i r c u i t . of the 19th J u d i c i a l for for f o r the seat contends judges Protection States i n the 19th J u d i c i a l Clause of Constitution. 12-17-20(b)(16), constitutional that the Fourteenth Specifically, A l a . Code rights Circuit 4 Amendment the to the B l e v i n s argues 1975, v i o l a t e s as a c a n d i d a t e violates that h i s fundamental and as a v o t e r . Blevins 1090581 contends the a that the residency requirement 19th J u d i c i a l candidate judgeships Circuit argues, limits Circuit by keeping an one t h e two unconstitutional We be § of voters i n which insists under in I t also, he Judicial candidate who from r u n n i n g f o r a j u d g e s h i p l o c a t e d i n that the candidate these the Equal Protection b e g i n by d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l e v e l applied as for circuit i n the 19th qualified judges i n treatment candidates i n Alabama. otherwise counties Blevins than circuit the options i n the c i r c u i t reside. judge other resides of accords him d i f f e r e n t for circuit i n every forcircuit evaluating the does limitations are Clause. of scrutiny that must constitutionality of 12-17-20(b)(16). "The E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e a l l o w s t h e S t a t e s c o n s i d e r a b l e l e e w a y t o e n a c t l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t may appear to affect similarly situated people differently. L e g i s l a t u r e s a r e o r d i n a r i l y assumed t o have acted constitutionally. Under traditional e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e s , d i s t i n c t i o n s need o n l y be d r a w n i n s u c h a m a n n e r a s t o b e a r some r a t i o n a l relationship to a legitimate state end. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are s e t aside o n l y i fthey are based s o l e l y on r e a s o n s t o t a l l y u n r e l a t e d t o t h e p u r s u i t o f t h e S t a t e ' s g o a l s a n d o n l y i f no g r o u n d s c a n b e c o n c e i v e d t o j u s t i f y them. See, e.g., McDonald v. B o a r d o f E l e c t i o n Comm'rs, 394 U.S. 802 , 80 8-80 9 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; McGowan v . M a r y l a n d , 366 U.S. 4 2 0 , 4 2 5 - 4 2 6 (1961). We h a v e d e p a r t e d f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l equal protection principles only when the challenged 5 not 1090581 statute places b u r d e n s upon 'suspect c l a s s e s ' of p e r s o n s o r on a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t h a t i s d e e m e d t o be ' f u n d a m e n t a l . ' San A n t o n i o I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D i s t . v . R o d r i g u e z , 411 U.S. 1, 17 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . " Clements that v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 962-63 "are subjected to sustained only i f they are compelling Living state Ctr., subjected failed to residency "strict proffer that a restriction, therein residency and will be tailored to serve of Cleburne v. Cleburne § 12-17-20(b)(16) analysis state and requirement, should that interest f o r the c i r c u i t The p r o b l e m w i t h i s i n i t i a l l y and "suspect a (1985). compelling Circuit. the City scrutiny" requirement Judicial that scrutiny suitably 4 3 2 , 440 contends to strict interest." 473 U.S. Blevins is Statutes i n f r i n g e upon f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t s o r t h a t b u r d e n classes" 19th (1982). as a Chapman f o r the judges Blevins's i n the contention ballot-access directly " f e l t by a s p i r a n t s f o r o f f i c e , r a t h e r than v o t e r s , and the Court has not h e r e t o f o r e attached such fundamental status to candidacy as t o i n v o k e a rigorous standard of review. However, t h e r i g h t s o f voters a n d t h e r i g h t s o f c a n d i d a t e s do n o t l e n d themselves t o neat separation; laws that affect c a n d i d a t e s a l w a y s h a v e a t l e a s t some t h e o r e t i c a l , c o r r e l a t i v e e f f e c t on v o t e r s . Of c o u r s e , n o t e v e r y l i m i t a t i o n o r i n c i d e n t a l b u r d e n on t h e e x e r c i s e o f voting r i g h t s i s subject to a stringent standard of 6 be 1090581 review. M c D o n a l d v . B o a r d o f E l e c t i o n , 394 U.S. 802 (19 6 9 ) . " Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 142-43 (1972) (footnote omitted). As the although every the right law scrutiny above-quoted that to vote affects language from i s itself a fundamental r i g h t , not this right Bullock i s subject indicates, to strict- analysis. " I t i s beyond c a v i l t h a t ' v o t i n g i s o f t h e most fundamental s i g n i f i c a n c e under our c o n s t i t u t i o n a l structure.' I l l i n o i s Bd. o f E l e c t i o n s v. S o c i a l i s t W o r k e r s P a r t y , 440 U.S. 1 7 3 , 184 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . I t does not f o l l o w , however, t h a t t h e r i g h t t o v o t e i n any manner and t h e r i g h t to associate for political purposes through the b a l l o t are absolute. Munro v. S o c i a l i s t W o r k e r s P a r t y , 479 U.S. 1 8 9 , 193 (1986). The C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s t h a t S t a t e s may p r e s c r i b e ' [ t ] h e Times, P l a c e s and Manner o f h o l d i n g E l e c t i o n s f o r S e n a t o r s a n d R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , ' A r t . I , § 4, c l . 1, and t h e Court therefore has r e c o g n i z e d that States r e t a i n t h e power to regulate their own elections. S u g a r m a n v . D o u g a l l , 413 U.S. 6 3 4 , 647 (1973) ; T a s h j i a n v. R e p u b l i c a n P a r t y o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 479 U.S. 2 0 8 , 217 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Common s e n s e , a s w e l l a s constitutional law, compels the conclusion that g o v e r n m e n t m u s t p l a y an a c t i v e r o l e i n s t r u c t u r i n g e l e c t i o n s ; 'as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , t h e r e m u s t b e a s u b s t a n t i a l r e g u l a t i o n of e l e c t i o n s i f they are to be f a i r a n d h o n e s t a n d i f some s o r t o f o r d e r , r a t h e r than chaos, i s to accompany the democratic processes.' S t o r e r v . B r o w n , 4 1 5 U.S. 724 , 730 (1974) . "Election laws will i n v a r i a b l y impose some b u r d e n upon i n d i v i d u a l v o t e r s . Each p r o v i s i o n of a 7 1090581 code, 'whether i t governs the r e g i s t r a t i o n and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the v o t i n g process itself, inevitably affects -- a t l e a s t t o some d e g r e e -- t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o v o t e a n d h i s r i g h t t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h others f o r p o l i t i c a l ends.' A n d e r s o n v . C e l e b r e z z e , 460 U.S. 7 8 0 , 788 (1983). Consequently, to subject every v o t i n g r e g u l a t i o n to s t r i c t s c r u t i n y and t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e r e g u l a t i o n be n a r r o w l y t a i l o r e d t o a d v a n c e a c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t ... w o u l d t i e t h e h a n d s o f S t a t e s s e e k i n g to a s s u r e t h a t e l e c t i o n s a r e o p e r a t e d e q u i t a b l y and efficiently. ... A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e mere f a c t t h a t a S t a t e ' s s y s t e m ' c r e a t e s b a r r i e r s ... t e n d i n g t o limit the f i e l d of candidates from which voters m i g h t c h o o s e ... d o e s n o t o f i t s e l f c o m p e l c l o s e scrutiny.' B u l l o c k v . C a r t e r , 405 U.S. 1 3 4 , 143 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; A n d e r s o n , s u p r a , 460 U.S., a t 7 8 8 ; M c D o n a l d v . B o a r d o f E l e c t i o n Comm'rs o f C h i c a g o , 394 U.S. 8 0 2 (19 6 9 ) . " Burdick v. Takushi, Where 504 U.S. 4 2 8 , 4 3 3 - 3 4 restrictions on candidates' (1992). ballot access concerned, "the need f o r s t r i c t s c r u t i n y might a r i s e i f , a f t e r ' r e a l i s t i c ' examination of the circumstances of the case, i t i s concluded that the candidate r e s t r i c t i o n s h a v e a ' r e a l a n d a p p r e c i a b l e i m p a c t ' on the v o t e r s ' r i g h t s . I n B u l l o c k [ v . C a r t e r , 405 U.S. 134 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , ] t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e b u r d e n on voters was 'neither incidental nor remote' b e c a u s e s o many o f f i c e s e e k e r s w e r e e x c l u d e d that t h e v o t e r s ' c h o i c e o f c a n d i d a t e s was ' s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i m i t e d , ' and because t h e law e s p e c i a l l y burdened a group of v o t e r s forming a p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t i t u e n c y with a common v i e w p o i n t (the poor). Thus t h e critical inquiry i s whether the challenged law substantially diminishes the f i e l d of candidates (and t h u s s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i m i n i s h e s v o t e r c h o i c e ) a n d 8 are 1090581 whether the law has a disparate cognizable p o l i t i c a l group." Joseph Mich. v. City of Birmingham, (footnote Bullock in 1981) involved the State office to Supreme the in pay Court Equal system of a legislature. as of The (D.C. filing-fee system Clause. In § the 19 The filing-fee contrast the United Fashing, of 1330 candidates $8,900. the maximum justice required that v. constitutionality sitting high in Bullock, Clements 131 9, F.Supp. primary-election which concluded evaluated established the as Protection on a omitted). Texas, fees 510 impact of the Texas the violated filing-fee Supreme Court the which for of peace run Court to States Constitution, period" Clements system local considered "waiting to United States supra, for two years a seat i n the concluded that § for a Texas 19 "places a de minimis burden on the political a s p i r a t i o n s of a c u r r e n t o f f i c e h o l d e r . Section 19 discriminates neither on the basis of political affiliation nor on any f a c t o r not r e l a t e d to a candidate's q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to h o l d p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e . Unlike filing fees or the level-of-support r e q u i r e m e n t s , § 19 i n no way b u r d e n s a c c e s s t o t h e political process by t h o s e who are outside the 'mainstream' of p o l i t i c a l life." 457 U.S. provision at did 967 not (final emphasis "contain any 9 added). classification In short, that the imposes 1090581 special burdens candidates. § 19 ... political on The in minority burdens no way upon Clements, residency requirement substantially diminish d i s c r i m i n a t e based parties or independent p l a c e d on t h o s e c a n d i d a t e s s u b j e c t t o depend viewpoint." The political the political 457 U.S. affiliation at 965. i n § 12-17-20(b)(16) field on p o l i t i c a l of does c a n d i d a t e s , nor affiliation or not does i t or v i e w p o i n t . It t r e a t s a l l candidates i n the 19th J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t equally and all I t does not requirement for v o t e r s i n the 19th J u d i c i a l matter that residency Circuit than on i t does throughout relates between constitutional 420, 427 evaluated statute candidates than circuits Clause the to areas on the imposes candidates state ... between (1961). "the persons territorial § basis" 19th Equal as Judicial in such, Maryland, 12-17-20(b)(16) other Protection uniformity McGowan v . Therefore, using a "rational i n the 1 for judgeships because prerequisite." equally. a different for judgeships equality and Circuit rather i s not 366 must a U.S. be analysis. S e e , e . g . , C i t y o f C l e b u r n e , 473 U.S. a t 439 ( n o t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e ... i s e s s e n t i a l l y a d i r e c t i o n t h a t a l l p e r s o n s s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d s h o u l d be t r e a t e d a l i k e . " (citing P l y l e r v . Doe, 457 U.S. 202 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) ) . 1 10 1090581 Although Blevins r e l i e s h e a v i l y on t h e c a s e o f H a d n o t t Amos, 320 F. S u p p . 107 (M.D. A l a . 1 9 7 0 ) , § 12-17-20(b)(16) Hadnott election-law 780 ordinarily instead (1983), Anderson, [the so, Anderson established Court's] "by an work i t is election ordinary § 12-17-20(b)(16) rather that Thus, Hadnott than "strict interesting Court's v . C e l e b r e z z e , 460 analytical in and process that litigation." does n o t c o n t r a d i c t must satisfy "rational scrutiny." that general residency requirement f o rc i r c u i t as noted above, Among t h e r e a s o n s t h e H a d n o t t interests circuit f o r the judges were general at § laws scrutiny" the Hadnott concluded t h a t Alabama had a c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t codified, that scrutiny" standard, subjected to " s t r i c t evaluated that analysis Even which 460 U.S. a t 7 8 9 . conclusion basis" decision, s h o u l d n o t be s h o u l d be parallels our must s a t i s f y t h e " s t r i c t was d e c i d e d b e f o r e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e landmark U.S. f o r h i s argument residency Court for i t s j u d g e s , w h i c h i s now 12-17-22, Court l i s t e d A l a . Code 1975. as c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e requirement of state the f o l l o w i n g : "We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a h a s [ a ] compelling state i n t e r e s t i n imposing a s u b s t a n t i a l pre-election residence requirement for circuit j u d g e s . ... 11 v. 1090581 "The S t a t e of A l a b a m a has a c o m p e l l i n g state i n t e r e s t i n exposing to the v o t e r s f o r a s u b s t a n t i a l p e r i o d o f t i m e b e f o r e e l e c t i o n t h e p e r s o n who will be a c a n d i d a t e f o r s t a t e c i r c u i t j u d g e . The circuit court i s the basic court of the state judicial s y s t e m , t h e k e y s t o n e o f t h e s t r u c t u r e . ... "We c o n s i d e r i t t o be o f u r g e n t i m p o r t a n c e t h a t t h e v o t e r h a v e an opportunity to observe, learn a b o u t a n d a p p r a i s e t h o s e who s e e k t o be candidates for a key j u d i c i a l o f f i c e t h a t t o u c h e s important e v e n t s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h e i r l i v e s and o f t h e community i n which they l i v e . There are innumerable q u a l i t i e s and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t . "The c a t a l o g c o u l d be e n d l e s s . The democratic process c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t t h e v o t e r s s h a l l make a choice. I n the case of t h i s important judicial office the state has a compelling interest in attempting to see that the voters have the o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t t h e i r c h o i c e be an i n f o r m e d one. A s s e r t i o n of the s t a t e i n t e r e s t w i l l b r i n g i m p e r f e c t results. Less than a l l voters w i l l observe, l e a r n and r a t i o n a l l y c h o o s e , b u t t h i s i s n o t t o d e n y t o the state its interest in extending the opportunity." Hadnott, 320 Echoing F. Supp. the at above-stated requirement i m p o s e d by each i n the county 119-21. 19th § rationale, 12-17-20(b)(16) Judicial 12 Circuit the gives the the residency voters opportunity of for 1090581 a greater least level one of of the judgeships ensures that Circuit, at l e a s t within the familiarity among the one circuit. with i n the three the be of at i t the familiar I t promotes the for Conversely, circuit. judges judge w i l l candidates 19th Judicial w i t h each appearance of j u s t i c e p r e v e n t i n g a more p o p u l o u s c o u n t y f r o m d o m i n a t i n g the seats of i n the recusals: circuit. by I t avoids requiring that the p o s s i b i l i t y the county three circuit by judicial excessive judges be r e s i d e n t s f r o m t h e t h r e e c o u n t i e s t h a t compose t h e c i r c u i t , i t reduces the chances circuit might because of have "[W]hen 'reasonable, of a justify' the state recuse Consequently, with case. than the of or parties the judges in h e r s e l f from or because a the case of the 2 law interests provision restrictions' rights restrictions." § one himself election Amendment regulatory the more nondiscriminatory Fourteenth important to familiarity circumstances and that of are voters, generally Burdick, 12-17-20(b)(16) does not 504 imposes upon the 'the only First State's sufficient U.S. violate at the to 434. Equal We do n o t i n t e n d t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s i s an exhaustive l i s t of r a t i o n a l reasons f o r the r e s i d e n c y requirement imposed by § 12-17-20(b)(16). 2 13 1090581 Protection States Clause of the F o u r t e e n t h Amendment United Conclusion Because the r e s i d e n c y requirement Judicial Circuit court's the Constitution. IV. passes to of the i m p o s e d by § 1 2 - 1 7 - 2 0 ( b ) ( 1 6 ) , A l a . Code constitutional summary f o r judges muster, judgment we conclude i n f a v o r of the that the S e c r e t a r y of concerning Blevins's c o m p l a i n t f o r d e c l a r a t o r y and relief 19th 1975, trial State affirmed. i s due t o be injunctive AFFIRMED. Cobb, and C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Bolin, J . , concurs i n the 14 result. Stuart, Smith, Parker,

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.