MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

for delegate slates, is more burdensome than the sole requirement in most states foraccess to the real primary ballot. 10A handful of states continue to include a party convention among it methods ofnominating candidates or selecting candidates for the primary ballot. Three states withmandatory primaries also permit conventions or party committees to name candidates forthe primary ballot, but, each provides, by law, an alternative route to the ballot bypetition. 11See 50-State Chart (specifically, Colorado, New Mexico, and New York).Five states (Alabama, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia) do not requireparties to use primaries to nominate candidates for the general election, but unlikeConnecticut, each of these has a system of primary ballot access that permits candidatesto pay a fee or submit petitions for ballot access. See 50-State Chart. 12Connecticut, then, stands with only five other states in not requiring its majorparties to nominate their candidates by primary and then allowing access to the primaryballot by petition or filing fee. Connecticut stands alone, however, in prohibiting, bystate law, a direct primary for all statewide and federal offices and most state legislativeoffices, depending on how a district’s lines are drawn. Only in Connecticut are10 To force a pre-primary primary (or to get on the primary ballot in a single-towndistrict), a candidate must file petitions with the signatures of 5% of the party voters inthe town. § 9-410(c) While we do not challenge the petition requirement here, it isnotable that the petition requirement for access to the real primary ballot in most otherstates is significantly lower than 5%. See 50-State Chart.11 Under Massachusetts state law, candidates for statewide races, for example, must filepetitions with the signatures of 10,000 voters (not registered party members) to receiveballot status. Mass. Gen. Laws ch 53 § 44. By party rule, however, candidates must alsoreceive at least 15% of the convention vote for ballot status. See Don’t Just Stand ThereRun: A Guide to Candidate Qualifying in the 2002 Election at 8 (available athttp://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/elepdf/dontstand.pdf).12 In Indiana and Michigan, candidates for certain statewide offices, such lieutenantgovernor and attorney general, are nominated by convention. See 50-State Chart.18
candidates for these critical offices denied, by law, the ability to get on the primary ballotwithout securing the approval of party leadership, while candidates for a handful of otheroffices can simply petition onto the primary ballot.E. There is No Legitimate Rationale for the Dual System.The dual system was passed in 1955 as a way to appear to give some ofConnecticut’s citizens a direct primary while ensuring that the party leaders retainedcontrol of the nominating process for most offices. Rapoport Decl. at 10-11.Whatever legitimate rationale existed in 1955, and there was none, fails today when (1)almost half the House districts cut willy-nilly across town lines while others – often rightnext door – are confined to a single town and thus receive the significantly different,more open, nominating procedure; and (2) Connecticut is out of step with every otherstate in the nation in imposing such a severely burdensome – and byzantine – system ofballot access for its statewide, federal, and most legislative offices.The system certainly cannot be justified when voters in one House district, the37 th for instance, are forced to use a cumbersome and burdensome system of ballot accessthat keeps control in the hands of party leaders, while their neighbors in the surroundingdistricts (the 39 th , for instance) have a system that allows candidates to get on theprimary ballot by simply submitting petitions. But the system clearly can’t be justified atall.Finally, recent attempts to amend this system by legislation illustrate the absenceof a legitimate state interest in continuing this system and highlight the system’s guidingprinciple – incumbent protection. In 1993, the Connecticut house passed on lawmandating petition access to the primary ballot for all offices by a vote of 128-19. See19
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRIC
Page 4 and 5: TABLE OF AUTHORITIESAnderson v. Cel
Page 6 and 7: a grueling, months-long process tha
Page 8 and 9: single-town state house districts w
Page 10 and 11: state’s 151 Assembly seats. 5In t
Page 12 and 13: of delegates, which takes place, by
Page 14 and 15: outsiders trying to achieve ballot
Page 16 and 17: 14; Byrnes Decl. at 5. In short, i
Page 18 and 19: Decl. at 10-11; Rapoport Decl. at
Page 20 and 21: in multi-town districts, out of a t
Page 24 and 25: Rapoport Decl. at 15. Notably, the
Page 26 and 27: I. THE BALANCE OF HARMS TIPS OVERWH
Page 28 and 29: primary ballot access while multi-t
Page 30 and 31: activities. See Statement of the Fa
Page 32 and 33: Not one state has legally-mandated
Page 34 and 35: McLoughlin Decl. at Exhibit C. But,
Page 36 and 37: 2. Connecticut’s unique and uniqu
Page 38 and 39: In addition, the court’s assessme
Page 40 and 41: In contrast to the court in Tansley
Page 42 and 43: The classification at issue here -
Page 44: e granted.CONCLUSIONFor all the for

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?