Crista Eggers v. Robert Evnen, No. 22-2268 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs, an individual and a registered Nebraska ballot campaign committee, challenged as contrary to the Equal Protection Clause a provision in the Nebraska constitution that establishes a signature requirement for ballot initiatives. The district court entered a preliminary injunction barring the Nebraska Secretary of State from enforcing the provision. The Secretary appealed.
The Eighth Circuit reversed explaining that because the signature distribution requirement “does not draw a suspect classification or restrict a fundamental right,” Plaintiffs must show that it cannot survive even rational-basis scrutiny. The court explained that Plaintiffs have not shown even a “fair chance” of carrying this burden. The Secretary identifies multiple legitimate government interests served by the signature distribution requirement. A lawmaker could rationally conclude that the signature distribution requirement furthers this interest by weeding out initiatives with a small but concentrated support base.
The court explained that it need not decide here whether to extend this principle to requests for injunctions against the enforcement of state constitutional provisions because the balance of the remaining preliminary injunction factors weighs in the Secretary’s favor anyway. Thus, on balance, the preliminary-injunction factors clearly weigh in the Secretary’s favor. The district court abused its discretion by granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Elections. Plaintiffs sued the Nebraska Secretary of State, alleging a provision of the Nebraska constitution that establishes a signature requirement for ballot initiatives violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the district court entered a preliminary injunction barring the Secretary from enforcing the provision. The provision in question states that in order for a initiative to be placed on the ballot, the signatories must "be so distributed as to include five percent of the registered voters of each of the two-fifths of the counties of the state." Plaintiffs' claim that the provisions restricts a fundamental right is foreclosed by circuit precedent as this court has held that no right can qualify as fundamental for purposes of equal-protection analysis unless it is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and the right to place initiatives on a state ballot is not a right created by the U.S. Constitution, but is a right created by state law; plaintiffs must therefore prove that the the provision cannot survive even a rational-basis scrutiny, and they have not show they have even a "fair chance" of carrying that burden; as such, they have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits; the other Dataphase factors also weigh in defendant's favor, and the injunction is vacated. Judge Kelly, dissenting. [ August 30, 2022 ]
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.