-TCB Libertarian Party of Virginia et al v. Virginia State Board of Elections, No. 1:2010cv00615 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated in open court and in this Memorandum Opinion, defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be granted by an Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion.Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 09/16/10. (yguy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-TCB Libertarian Party of Virginia et al v. Virginia State Board of Elections IN THE UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT DISTRICT Alexandria LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, Doc. 15 et al., OF COURT FOR THE VIRGINIA Division ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF l:10-CV-615 (LMB/TCB) ELECTIONS Defendant. MEMORANDUM I. This § action challenges 24.2-506, petitions which requires ("circulators") OPINION Background the constitutionality of Va. individuals who circulate to be qualified to vote congressional district where they circulate witness voters' Plaintiffs signatures. Code ballot in the specific those petitions and include the Libertarian Party of Virginia; its prospective of Representatives from Virginia's Eighth Congressional District in the November 2, 2010 (Matthew Mosley); is the supporters who District (Catherine Barrett)j Redpath); of for the U.S. general election Mosley's Virginia but not of candidate a resident of one supporter who is a resident of the Eighth Congressional District (Robert Benedict). 2010 under 42 U.S.C. residency requirement § 1983, one of Eighth Congressional and another supporter who is a resident Columbia House Plaintiffs alleging that filed the for circulators violates of suit (William the District on June 3, in-district their First and Dockets.Justia.com Fourteenth Amendment choice from being placed on Under Virginia November U.S. 8, 2, House 2010, for rights that 2010 law, general to by preventing be listed on election, must a petition signed by at Moreover, have been witnessed by voters or qualified Specifically, Va. the to register § the for of the candidates have by least filed, 1,000 signatures are to vote 24.2-506 ballot prospective circulators who Code candidate the ballot. of Representatives office. their for provides for the 7:00 pm on June "qualified voters" on the petition must themselves that qualified office. that: The name of any candidate for any office, other than a party nominee, shall not be printed upon any official ballots provided for the election unless he shall file along with his declaration of candidacy a petition therefor, on a form prescribed by the State Board, signed by the number of qualified voters specified below1 after January 1 of the year in which the election is held and listing the residence address of each such voter. Each signature on have been witnessed by a person who qualified voter, or qualified to the office for which he is whose affidavit to that the petition is himself a register circulating effect appears shall to vote, for the petition and on each page of the petition. Va. Code § 24.2-101 defines "qualified voter" Virginia's election statutes as pursuant to for the purposes of "a person who is entitled to vote the Constitution of Virginia and who is of age on or before the day of the election . . . (i) (ii) 18 years a resident 1 The statute subsequently specifies that the minimum number of signatures of qualified voters for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives shall be 1,000 signatures. Va. Code § 24.2-506. of the vote, Commonwealth and of and (iii) the precinct registered Mosley, however, District. candidate in Virginia's resides Plaintiffs' he offers to to vote." Mosley is a prospective Representatives in which in for the U.S. Eighth Congressional the Tenth June 3, rather than House of District. the Eighth 2010 complaint alleges that plaintiff Mosley was unlikely to be able to meet the 1,000- signature threshold requirement for being placed on the November 2010 filing deadline without assistance ballot by the June 8, 2010 from plaintiffs Benedict and Redpath, who reside outside the Eighth Congressional interested in circulating Mosley's of-district residents, § 24.2-506 from the Eighth District, from Va. Code circulators, rights § however, serving as Plaintiffs' law. candidate petition. Those out- are barred by the text of Va. Code for candidates in including Mosley. complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief 24.2-506's in-district Specifically, residency requirement assert unduly burdens their votes effectively, the advancement of political of District and yet were petition circulators which plaintiffs to cast along with other supporters ideas, plaintiffs for their to speak and associate for and to have equal protection request a declaration that Virginia's prohibition against the circulation of candidate petitions by out-of-district circulators is unconstitutional and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, preliminary and permanent 3 injunctions against enforcement of the prohibition against circulation of candidate petitions by out-of-district circulators, an order prohibiting the Virginia State Board of Elections refusing to list Mosley on the ballot for the November 2, general election as Representatives attorneys other fees relief candidate for the U.S. House from the Eighth Congressional and costs pursuant as On August a may be 6, just 2010, the filed a Motion to Dismiss. to 42 Response Defendant Virginia State On August 23, Board 2010, filed its opposition to plaintiffs' this Court at 2010. this "[a] Standard surrounding the 12(b)(6), 943, 952 plaintiffs filed a to Defendant's [Plaintiff's] 2010. Defendant also Motion for Summary Judgment on of the sufficiency of a complaint; F.2d 27, Elections is before Review motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) facts, applicability of defenses." 980 such time. Traditionally, contests and Only defendant's Motion to Dismiss II. tests of filed its Reply to to Motion to Dismiss on August September 3, 1988, reasonable and proper. Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition Motion to Dismiss. § 2010 of District, U.S.C. from (4th Cir. ... it does not resolve the merits of a claim, Republican Party of N.C. 1992). Under Fed. R. Civ. or the v. Martin. P. a complaint should not be dismissed "unless it appears certain that [the plaintiff] can prove no set of support his claim and would entitle him to Sydnor, 184 F.3d 356, all of the 361 complaint's (4th Cir. facts relief." 1999). The as them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. F.3d at not to 361. However, legal conclusions Ashcroft facts. Moreover, v. the the Rule 12(b)(6) level, 555 court (2007). requirement applies to unreasonable 129 S. Ct. Supreme Court's standard, enough on the in the complaint are 544, or Iqbal, allegations must be speculative that " [I]f a right assumption that Bell Atl. true and view Smith, only to 1184 facts, from the w[f]actual of all Corp. the well-pled facts law has amplified relief above of v. the the allegations Twombly, do not permit 550 U.S. the to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, complaint has alleged- but is entitled to relief. it has not Iqbal, 129 S. 'show[n]'- Ct. that at 1950. plaintiff's complaint must provide more than mere conclusions stating that Id. accept (2009). recent case raise must inferences clarifying that to true." 1937 Smith v. Court well-pleaded allegations that would Rather, the plaintiff a complaint achieves is the the pleader Thus, a labels and entitled to relief. factual plausibility only when it contains sufficient allegations supporting the reasonable inference that the facts as alleged give rise claim. As Id. at 1949; see also Twombly, the Fourth Circuit has 550 to an actionable U.S. at 555. noted in Francis v. Giacomelli. this analysis court to is context draw on Giacomelli, stressed 588 its judicial F.3d 186, in Giacomelli necessitate some cross 'the specific line experience 193 that (4th Cir. support of Id. claims. that is moot facts sufficient Supp. of Mot. to As a 42 U.S.C. Amendment. Id. 6. § at light arguments at dismiss 8. For this also wrongdoing On of standing. Defendant the state reasons action will be at 557). raises dealing with have Def.'s the merits defendant contends failed to Mem. also argues of allege Law in that claim is barred by the Eleventh the merits, Supreme 550 U.S. addressing plaintiffs defendant argues that a claim upon which relief Court can be and Fourth Circuit precedent upholding similar residency requirements Id. of Court defendant threshold matter, 7. 1983 have failed to in several and that to Dismiss at to dismiss, establish plaintiffs' granted, The within the complaint to and a primary argument of plaintiffs' plaintiffs 2009). sense." Discussion including preliminary matters case "reviewing common (quoting Twombly, its motion arguments, this the between possibility and plausibility of III. multiple and "'naked assertions' 'factual enhancement' entitlement to relief.'" In and requires in state explained below, granted. election laws. defendant's motion to A. Preliminary I. Matters Mootness The Virginia State action is moot because the required 1,000 already been general Court yet occurred, given § to the basis. 1983, is that the for Defendant 2, remains from refusing election, general mootness live, form of "capable of Terminal Co. to the action could ICC, 219 2 Defendant argued, this motion, that contends case. this Court could by granting judgment 42 that Va. U.S.C. the Virginia list Mosley's as 2010 plaintiffs State name as a contend, even this case after the November 2010 because U.S. 498 still it repetition yet evading v. and a 2, election has not and violates Moreover, doctrine November this the plaintiffs unconstitutional and Mosley has therefore 2010 this for obtaining the to decide in the that has passed, coupled with an order prohibiting Elections argues deadline ballot November controversy the Court were to decide general 2010 jurisdiction candidate on the ballot.2 on 8, signatures requested relief 24.2-506 Board of if Elections remedy any alleged harm to plaintiffs' § access lacks this June petition denied However, Code the election on that that this still Board of is meet a controversy review." See, that e.g., S. the is Pac. (1911). for the first time at the oral hearing such relief would not the fact that absentee balloting an exception to be proper in light of for the November 2010 election has already begun. That argument, however, appears the briefing on defendant's motion to dismiss. 7 nowhere in In ballot will this for case, the November continue candidates As be provided the applied in 2, in already been 2010 future the parties Supreme "election to the is long candidates properly candidacies, will (upholding a California that individual registered political party). motion to ii. Defendant and U.S. access to in Storer v. effective case their effects the . 724, 737 Brown, relief [the] . future an independent is not moot, on . statutes n.8 (1974) dismiss the this are from candidate within having been a member of Accordingly, can Court a will deny instant action as moot. Standing further argues established standing to that plaintiffs challenge Va. Code § have Without a concrete legally protected particularized and interest (b) which actual a plaintiff has or no is (a) imminent, standing not to not 24.2-506, on the facts as pled in their complaint. hypothetical," issue law that prohibited an individual running for an elected office as six months of seek and no persist as 415 this the as prospective articulated presented, to Virginia and other or voters, future elections." defendant's elections over, access However, in Virginia Court denied election. the Libertarian Party of issues independent arise political even when an since to of alternative ballots. Mosley has adequately at least "an invasion of and conjectural or sue in a federal court." Lu-jan v. Defenders of (internal citations omitted). be a causal connection complained of, speculative, decision." Yet in the and it must be that Id. as 'but the Code § for' the Virginia "do the the 24.2-506, to Dismiss For 7. signatures likely to receive, signatures district as that under Lujan, "likely, State district falls as opposed there must to merely Board of Elections favorable allege facts notes, nowhere establishing found 2010." Def.'s Mem. example, that the of in Virginia Law in Supp. complaint never Mosley had already nor does by June without co-plaintiffs. that, the those likely to be witnessed by "unlikely" 8 alleges it specify the number of is of Mot. received or was opposed to out-of-district circulators. short of (1992) conduct be redressed by a plaintiffs were or were Mosley was signatures the 560 citations omitted). only allegation in the complaint filing, injury and 555, plaintiff Mosley would have obtained the needed 8, number of Moreover, the U.S. restriction on circulators petitions by June at 504 injury will (internal complaint that between Wildlife, as of in- Instead, the date of to obtain the needed 1,000 petition the assistance Pi. ' s the requirement Compl. If 19. of his out-of- That bare allegation that the plaintiff plead plausible facts establishing sufficient harm and causation to support standing to sue. Both parties to this the case have agreed, based upon their filings that to plaintiffs' Mosley ultimately did help of not with respect over 1,000 signatures out-of-district petition circulators.3 sought leave information, this motion to and it amend this sufficient facts in their therefore to dismiss. complaint, However, obtain Motion for Summary Judgment, Court of is not Purely on finds supporting light complaint the to the facts standing parties' to bring agreement signatures Code address defendant's iii. § 24.2-506, other this arguments the on case. Mosley the majority supporters will to dismiss court failed to allege this that Court have pled in the in total, of which were witnessed by out-of-district Va. as the that before that plaintiffs have ultimately submitted over 1,000 violation of Plaintiffs include properly with in proceed to this action. Eleventh Amendment Defendant next contends that this suit against the Virginia 3 The parties disagree as to the exact number of total signatures, with plaintiffs alleging that Mosley and his supporters submitted 1,496 signatures, while defendant alleges that he submitted only 1,467 total signatures. Compare Br. Supp. of PL's Mot. for Summ. J. and in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. Dismiss at However, 3 to Def.'s Opp. to Pi.'s Mot. under either party's version of have obtained sufficient signatures for Summ. the to clear facts, the J. at in to 3. Mosley would 1,000 threshold, provided that signatures collected by out-of-district circulators were permitted to count. Instead, once the signatures witnessed by out-of-district circulators were discarded, the Virginia State Board of Elections found that Mosley had only submitted 425 properly verified signatures. See of PL's Mot. for Summ. J. and in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss {attaching a letter from the Secretary of the State Board to Mosley 10 to that effect). State Board of Elections should be Amendment-based doctrine of against agency a state or Under the state in federal 363 (2001). 356, also court. in which a 529 this Board of Regents case, is a state undisputed Board that quintessential the "arm of § 429 U.S. the Elections is immunity as is of the 42 v. § of 1983. may not Garrett, agents Eleventh claims 531 Eleventh Amendment state agree agency 274, 280 as and sue a U.S. bars "not the defendant, state Cal. v. Doe, entitled the to argue to that See Compl. functions 519 other Healthy City Bd. A suit Virginia, the to same and against the protections State to oversee H 12. as It is a to approving functionally equivalent Commonwealth attempt established and making Mt. the Virginia with respect (1977). therefore that Elections State" Commonwealth of Plaintiffs (1908), U.S.C. the Univ. for official ballots Elections under individuals 24.2-103. election-related decisions. against of both parties Code of bars actually named against elections under Va. Dovle, is the immunity Trustees the because (1997). Elections candidates of State certain actions 425, In Bd. filed private Furthermore, instrumentalities." U.S. sovereign Eleventh Amendment, only actions but state dismissed official of v. the State Board to State of Educ. a suit Board of sovereign itself. rely upon Ex parte they may sue II the Young, defendant, 209 U.S. an agency of 123 the Commonwealth, defendant Young local correctly responds, doctrine relief seeking prospective only allows against individual government, Moreover, immunity not Congress for with Old Dominion Va. aff'd, For Amendment. State defendant's made that the plaintiffs suing capacities rather seek to Mot. for amend proceed to plausible J. that 33 of 42 notification, for relief parte of a state or as is on § " [i]f in suits. 474-75 See (E.D. 1983 resorted Board to the in their against Eleventh opposition Br. will legal official plaintiffs would in Supp. of Pis.' to Dismiss at 14. therefore complaint the merits. the their an entity, Court by suit a determination were to Def.'s Mot. 12 469, barred accordingly." this 1983 1999). U.S.C. consider whether plaintiffs' claim Ex agencies. § 2d stated that the Board and in Opp'n U.S.C. Supp. have should have the state (4th Cir. dismiss members than F. Elections their complaint Summ. In light of the or the as or declaratory or officials plaintiffs' to However, fiction of injunctive to 42 plaintiffs motion fiction of regard of only. abrogated Eleventh Amendment F.3d 501 Board However, for a state Univ.. those reasons, the Virginia to 188 legal officers never Demuren v. 1999), suit against has states the relief states also a B. Plaintiffs' Can Be I. Failure Parties' Plaintiffs claim that to that have and the equal protection § 24.2-506 requirement of right law, ... (citing Norman v. further allege that justified by a to cast Compl. 279, such impairment of Plaintiffs also argue state constitutional anomaly because in the congressional it 288 Code Constitution, themselves need not in PL's Mot. for Summ. at 7-8. In this case, Tenth Congressional J. and District 4 Article I of the U.S. Representative in Congress seven years, and be U.S. chosen." "an Relief rights cannot Id. 24.2-506 creates a circulators candidates to Def.'s Mosley 25 years I, of § 13 at Plaintiffs to reside is a for Congress See Br. Mot. resident is in Supp. to Dismiss of the seeking to run Constitution requires only that a be Art. (1992)). in Virginia but Inhabitant Const. and Inj. districts." in Opp. plaintiff § new they are circulating while under the of effectively, [a] plaintiffs' petitions, those rights including their requires district where reside their votes interest. that Va. plaintiffs' for Decl. 502 U.S. their First plaintiffs and develop Reed, sufficient violates "impairs to create Pis.'s residency requirement In particular, to speak and associate politically, political party[y].'" be Claim upon which Relief in-district rights. residency 'constitutional 5 the Code Fourteenth Amendment allege a Arguments for circulators under Va. and to State Granted old, that 2, a U.S. State cl. 2. citizen in which he for shall for election in Constitution, § 24.2-506, he he own petition, but do not circulate the Eighth is is permitted not his in any the other Eighth petition. do anomalous and laws to in-district so, District. but serve under as supporters a argues requirements the Code reside for Virginia's residency Va. District therefore unconstitutional Under circulator who Congressional Plaintiff both impose to permitted to nor are live Congressional of his in Virginia allowed that state it to is election for circulators. In support Board of claim Elections upon which the Virginia Mosley's its access motion argues relief statute constitutional to Mot. of to that can be imposes the residency restriction See 5-7. for Commonwealth's important fair electoral process the Virginia plaintiffs granted. have and upon Def.'s circulators interests burden his Reply Defendant failed Defendant only a modest ballot rights. to Dismiss at to dismiss, state contends a that on plaintiff to further argues PL's that justified by in ensuring in district-wide to co-plaintiffs' in Resp. is State an Opp. the the efficient congressional and elections. Id. ii. Both balancing parties test which trial challenges Framework agree Review that the in Anderson v. courts must to for use in Supreme Celebrezze, evaluating state-imposed restrictions 14 Court has set forth a 460 U.S. 780 (1983), constitutional on access to the ballot The Fourth Circuit has consistently involving constitutional e.g., Barr 2008); v. challenges to voting test in cases regulations. 575 F. Supp. 2d 747, 756 (S.D. W. Jensen, 285 F. Supp. 2d 710, 715 (E.D. Va. Under the Anderson Court] magnitude See Va. 2003) test: must first consider of the asserted protected by the First the injury and the State as character to the and rights Fourteenth Amendments the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. identify and evaluate the precise by that Ireland, Levy v. [The applied justifications It then must interests put for the burden that forward imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, which those plaintiff's factors is whether the it also must interests rights. the make consider it Only after reviewing challenged the necessary court extent to burden weighing all in a position [restriction] to the these to decide is unconstitutional. Anderson, 460 U.S. for independent for candidates 504 US. voting 428, As the 789 (striking candidates, for 433-34 in state at major Court Ohio's earlier see also filing than elections). has observed, "to subject that be state would tie tailored to the hands of advance States a compelling seeking to assure operated equitably and efficiently." Therefore, of judicial review, Anderson review, and Burdick Burdick, together ranging from strict depending upon Takushi, ban on write-in regulation to strict scrutiny and to require narrowly deadline the deadline Burdick v, (upholding Hawaii's and federal Supreme which was parties); (1992) down the particular 15 every the regulation interest that 504 establish voting . . elections are U.S. a . at 433. sliding scale scrutiny to rational basis facts and circumstances of each case. Under "rigorousness election law the of [a When 434. those imposes the First U.S. important to at extent to "subjected But the the propriety of which a when to severe to advance a a state rights." state election justify the interests restrictions." are Id. case, defendant persuasively intend to run, is constitutional Fourteenth Amendments. 2. candidates argues not a "severe rights under See The district Def.'s file that gathered and witnessed by residents of ballot. nor does Rather, . . Reply political party. Code all burdens upon suspect 24.2-506 either to the Pi.'s is a neutral equal district on First Opp. or the to Mot. issue access classes of 16 imposes requirement that regardless of protection principles, the challenged persons to to the to have acted constitutionally, 'only when 1,000 a candidate or candidates, traditional legislatures are presumed the residency requirement at potential "Under is overcome § Virginia's a petition with it deny third-party candidates Va. applies equally to presumption . restriction" no discriminatory restrictions on Mosley as advocate, of (citing Anderson, signatures, Dismiss at the generally that prospective plaintiffs' interest at law provision requirement they Id. 788). In this where state restrictions, nondiscriminatory restrictions regulatory a challenged Fourteenth Amendment narrowly drawn importance. state's the are framework, inquiry into and only reasonable, sufficient 460 upon rights regulation must be compelling court's] depends regulation burdens Anderson-Burdick or on a and this statute places constitutional right 148 that F. is Supp. rational deemed 2d to be 630, 635 fundamental.'" (E.D. Va. 2001) Amarasinqhe v. (Friedman, basis review and denying a motion injunction in a challenge to Va. Code § J.) Quinn, {applying for a preliminary 24.2-506's 1,000 signature requirement). Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts such a discriminatory burden in this case, [Mosley] has chosen to run party affiliation does strict scrutiny." 3:10CV481-HEH, (Hudson, to Va. was J.) Code WL § 3385181, 24.2-506's at - *6 in-district in substance Fourteenth Amendment in to fact that "[t]he independent of suspect F Supp. (E.D. class 2d. Va. -, Aug. a triggering No. 26, 2010) this v. Fourth Circuit, "severe restriction" 766 burden and declining the case. for Anderson-Burdick purposes. Davis. that that raised by plaintiffs here).5 in the also failed to establish a Amendment rights residency requirement therefore not appropriate under In light of precedent severe him in a Rodrigues, scrutiny review is Party of Va. and (rejecting a First and Fourteenth Amendment challenge identical Strict 2010 to establish for political office not place Lux v. sufficient F.2d 865 (4th Cir. to apply strict plaintiffs have on their First See Libertarian 1985) scrutiny (finding no to a Virginia law requiring in-district residency for petition circulators in statewide elections). have held, Va. Code s Tellingly, neutral ballot violative of § As several other decisions of 24.2-506 does this district not unduly restrict a plaintiffs do not cite a single case finding a restriction such as the one the Fourteenth Amendment's 17 at Equal issue in this case Protection Clause. candidate's ability to communicate with his prospective constituents, it nor a congressional prospective Wood v. affd, district candidate. Quinn, 230 rational does 104 F.3d basis F. unduly limit to sign petitions See, Supp. 1356 the ability of e.g., Lux, 2d 611 (4th Cir. 200) in support of 2010 (E.D. Va. WL Code 2000) § a 3385181, (per curiam) review and upholding Va. residents of at *5; (Spencer, J.), (applying 24.2-506's numerosity and geographical distribution requirements); Amarasinghe, § 24.2-506, to voters, free 148 F. Mosley Supp. is and voters to express 2d at free in to the 635. communicate Eighth their support Rather, his under Va. thoughts Congressional for Mosley's only that another person qualified to vote Code and ideas District candidacy, are provided in the Eighth District is present when any voters sign Mosley's candidate petition. Moreover, as defendant his other out-of-district correctly argues, supporters could still work for the Mosley campaign and assist in circulating his petition, someone eligible to vote in accompanied them and was present signatures. See Va. plaintiff Mosley and Code. so long as the Eighth Congressional District § to witness any voters' 24.2-506. Alternatively, Mosley could simply have had one or more persons from the Eighth Congressional District, witness such as plaintiff Barrett, the minimum number of even were Mosley unable to required signatures. obtain the required could still have pursued available procedures 18 obtain and Id. Finally, signatures, he for becoming a write-in candidate, support for him Va. Code § and his in their votes 24.2-506's in-district not constitutional rights] 434 (emphasis rise U.S. of itself 957, (1972)). compel 963 to in the As to a the have declined that statute, 2010 WL 3385181, 148 F. Supp. plaintiffs' to apply 2d at *5; Supreme district Code strict Wood, 635. § U.S. at 434 iii. Applying of 460 to times, their to and each review of review. See Lux, 615; Amarasinghe, this Court will analyze challenges Anderson, 134 2d at nondiscriminatory ballot (citing U.S. 457 Supp. under important regulatory interests" any neutral, 'does Fashing, 405 three basis Anderson-Burdick version of rational basis state's v. U.S. "the considered challenges scrutiny F. noted, 504 to the ballot Carter, 24.2-506 Accordingly, constitutional Court has rational 104 requirement Burdick, Clements have their "subject[ing plaintiffs' Bullock v. instead employing at of espoused behalf. residency scrutiny.'" the constitutionality of Va. time his candidate's access (quoting this level on severe restrictions." close (1982) Judges to added). existence of barriers not could have by writing therefore does at supporters the lens review, will at the under which suffice requirements. U.S. of "a to justify Burdick, 504 788). Analysis the Anderson-Burdick framework Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent plaintiffs have failed to state a valid 19 legal to this reveals case in light that claim upon which they are entitled to relief. residency requirement ballot restrictions, state's Rather, for circulators, is justified as legitimate and important safeguarding there must the electoral a substantial be Virginia's like regulatory "[A]s regulation fair and honest and if is to accompany the democratic processes." The associate and is are to be First and "necessarily Party, 479 of purposes, subject but 189, 193 elections see they are to rather than chaos, protect if Wood, 415 U.S. the freedom Munro v. also the in if Storer, to qualification (1986); law by and a practical matter, that fairly and effectively." U.S. electoral interests order, Fourteenth Amendments for political run sort of be 730. most a matter of process. some in-district at freedom to is not absolute elections Socialist Workers 104 F. Supp. 2d at 614. While every statutory constraint on the circulation of a candidate's ballot petition implicates Amendments to some degree, residency restrictions reasonable regulatory state efficient and interest Court imposed by Va. interest. requirement is a neutral, ensure this The the First finds Code that § 614-15 the serve a residency non-discriminatory measure designed to fair elections and to serve an important in protecting the political process (citing in-district 24.2-506 in-district confusion caused by an overcrowded ballot." at and Fourteenth Clements, 457 U.S. at Wood, 965). and "avoiding 104 Courts F. Supp, 2d have historically recognized that states have a valid interest "in keeping limits." [their] ballots within manageable, 20 understandable Lubin v. U.S. at Panish. 788, candidates n.9 415 US. {"The 709, State 715 has (1974); see also Anderson, the undoubted right to make a preliminary showing of substantial order to qualify for a place on the ballot, wasteful and confusing frivolous to encumber candidates."). To that upheld ballot access provisions with for the office." Munro, Controlling case of Va. 766 v. F.2d Davis, 865, 869 591 279 that may "condition access (4th Cir. this action for failure to at 1561, 1985), 1564 also (E.D. Libertarian Party Va. supports state a claim. for obtaining access burdensome in the nation." to 766 the 1984), F.2d at is 868. to which required petition circulators "one The aff'd. dismissing In Davis, ballot then upheld a Virginia statute analogous Court, candidate 193. the Fourth Circuit found that by comparison to many other states, process to the support among the potential voters U.S. Supp. of the Supreme Court has law in the Fourth Circuit, F. support in the names general election ballot by a minor-party or independent upon a showing of a modicum of require because it is both the ballot end, to 460 of Virginia's the least Fourth Circuit the one before this for statewide elections to reside in the same district as the petition signers whose signatures they witnessed. The Davis residency requirement met an interest "important" and indeed the "compelling" in ensuring that potential candidates have a modicum of ballot," court held that "significant support before being granted a place on the state's and thereby avoiding frustration of "confusion, the democratic process at 21 deception, and even the general election." Id. Given those found that the important state had a interests, legitimate "within each congressional 'activist' state district sufficiently motivated witnessing signatures" different however, while is no controversy. force here, congressional less where the state significant modicum of election is ultimately represent gain access to in-district at least that one the burden of here Id. at challenge for circulators seeks 870. The of petitions rationale to to ensure a the instant with even that and whose residents Otherwise, in in Davis, greater candidates in the sole district where if elected. the ballot [be] reasoning applies support taking place, requiring residency requirement for races. Davis's for petitions. compelling as applied Indeed, Fourth Circuit to shoulder the plaintiffs residency requirement single-district there for candidates' Davis dealt with a district statewide elections, basis the have a the the candidate would a candidate might in a district without having a single supporter or group of supporters committed enough to obtain and witness the minimum number of signatures. particularly problematic where, as here, the That is candidate himself resides outside the district where he wishes to run for office. Plaintiffs argue undermined by recent circuits, that the rationale Supreme in Davis Court precedent, case has been law in other and the Virginia legislature's amending the statute at issue in Davis to remove the statewide races. None of in-district residency requirement for those arguments holds 22 water. First, the mere fact remove that the the residency precedential status upholding the requirement the like of repeatedly cite 182, that Mot. only that that and that 24.2-506 to is identify disclosures. need only be Va. Code far less themselves residents Summ. and alter the down a residency as Plaintiffs Law Found., that that J. and any restrictions with a 525 U.S. onerous: it at Colorado does to vote, or make any not registered the districts register 24.2-506. 23 bearing addresses, of require Va. that it require public Virginia circulators in which to vote in the By contrast, nor does sort See statute to participate 186. on to Def.'s Mot. their names, they were paid Inc., "[pjetition in Opp. terms of the statute, of to in Davis identification badges registered Under the § case they publicly report signatures and qualified to See this struck Constitutional speech" they wear petition circulators be them decision petition circulators be petition circulation process. § in never Buckley dealt and the amount of money that Code 24.1-159 any respect the propositions for required not their names, § therefore violate the First Amendment. PL's also has Am. political However, but in Circuit's issue for 10. voters, not Code constitutionality. Court at (1999) core of to Dismiss at Fourth to Buckley v. petition circulators in Supp. doss statute's one amended Va. either before or after Davis. 183 circulation is Br. the Supreme the unconstitutional, U.S. requirement previous Moreover, 525 legislature has they witness in those districts. Moreover, question, Supreme e.g., far dicta in Court's 525 U.S. at 197 upheld as also id- at "the merely voter 195, circulators"). Court noted ensure States's beyond a support (assuming buttresses eligible states have State's the a mere support borders." included valid in Id. these at law in 2000), (7th Cir. in matters 196. the requirement under which the Buckley Secretary does not Circuit of example, distinguish, or undermine in Krislov v. the Seventh Circuit requirement more only in Davis, the Davis from other jurisdictions from the instant Rednour, 226 F.3d struck down a but also a voter registration requirement, times extend the Fourth Circuit or of circulators, two-and-a-half of jurisdiction. only a district signature to therefore included not onerous see "seek[ing] Buckley Fourth this See, petition the scenarios distinguishable 860 requirements. elections, to they cite only to cases For the to defendant's Motion to Dismiss, that question, controversy. expresses to residency interests do not cite any decisions factual into "residence among in statewide reached by good Davis for statutes with respect which conclusion Rather, presenting in fact circulators will be amenable district holding. are for circulators In their opposition this that of integrity-policing measure"); Specifically, a decision which remains plaintiffs rationale for residency (expressing subpoena power, the the Buckley opinion needful n.16 that that the calling general would be requirements from residency requirement 24 as law that for under which candidates signatures 851, a percentage and a more had to gather of the electorate than prospective congressional Eighth District must obtain.6 Elections. that 232 F.3d 135, circulators be Similarly, 139 (2d Cir. notary publics, Lerman v. 2000), electorate, required here. v 883, 572 F. Supp. 2d 898 or in Lerman, from five or twenty-five proportion of signatures Land, deeds, the same political party as Under the statute at issue the district's Board of of candidates were also required to obtain signatures percent of in Virginia's involved requirements commissioners duly qualified and enrolled voters of the petition signers. candidates (W.D. Id. times Meanwhile, Mich.), the Bogaert involved a requirement that recall petition circulators be registered to vote and residents of proposed. The the legislative district where challenged law in Bogaert also the recall required is that circulators obtain signatures from a full twenty-five percent of the electorate, or 125 times The holding in Davis the percentage expressly rested, the Fourth Circuit's assessment requirements, including circulators, were states. F.2d at 766 its at least in part, on for by comparison to those The id. that Virginia's ballot access residency requirements "indulgent" 869. required here. unique petition signature requirements means leniency of in other Virginia's that decisions from other circuits addressing more burdensome electoral requirements in other states are simply Prospective inapposite candidates to this case. like Mosley must Plaintiffs' obtain 1,000 signatures, or 0.2 percent of the Eighth District electorate, in order to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from that District. 25 repeated citations to non-binding authority in other jurisdictions simply do not disturb the controlling weight of Davis action. Moreover, courts have in the years since Buckley, rationale in Davis. Referendum Inst. v. Jaeger. for discouraging fraud); of State, 1999) (D. 1999) 1999 U.S. (same); Neb. Kean v. (same); Dist. 2010) e.g., 617 Initiative (8th Cir. & 2001) finding that it was important Clark. 56 F. Supp. 2d 719, 728-29 Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. LEXIS 22071 at M3-48 Apr. see also Groene v. July 1, See, 241 F.3d 614, (affirming a residency requirement, Miss. for circulators along lines of reasoning very similar to the Fourth Circuit's (S.D. other federal in fact upheld residency requirements in statewide races, in this Gale, (D. 2010 U.S. Me. Dist. Sec'y LEXIS 23, 65821 (denying a motion for a preliminary injunction in a case challenging a state residency requirement for petition circulators). Finally, if there were any doubt that Davis and indeed dispositive authority in this case, in Lux v. Aug. 26, Rodrigues. 2010) - F. (Hudson, Supp. J.) 2d -, is controlling the recent decision 2010 WL 335181 dispels it. (E.D. Va. Relying upon Davis, Lux rejected an identical constitutional attack upon the precise residency requirement for petition circulators that plaintiffs challenge in this Specifically, action. See 2010 WL 3385181, at Judge Hudson applied rational basis review and found that the in-district residency requirement in Va. serves *6. a legitimate state purpose and does not burden on the plaintiffs' Code § 24.2-506 impose any severe First or Fourteenth Amendment rights. 26 Id. Citing Davis, Appeals that for "the the Fourth Circuit restrictions Virginia Code] Id- the Lux decision appear Accordingly, the Lux court held that state on at *7. The Id. complaint plaintiffs' to have to serve a reasonable to face." appears in Lux complaint is virtually in this case, Motion to Dismiss will be Opinion, to be and the that is plausible both on its arguments. from facts and in its Therefore, this Court in Lux and similarly find a plausible entitlement the Virginia State Board of Election's granted. IV. For the reasons [of of the plaintiffs' complaint does not assert Accordingly, Court spoken clearly" indistinguishable will follow the well-reasoned conclusion to relief. "the U.S. regulatory interest." a claim for relief First and Fourteenth Amendment that plaintiffs' that imposed by Section 24.2-506 11 [c] omplaint fails its states Conclusion stated in open court and in this Memorandum defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be granted by an Order issued with this Entered this it Memorandum Opinion. day of September, 2010. /s/ Alexandria, Leonie M. Brinkema United Slates District Judge Virginia 27
]]>
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.
