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

primary ballot access while multi-town districts have a burdensome system that is almostimpossible for any non-favored candidate to surmount. See Point B, below. Theseconstitutional flaws are substantial, and, as demonstrated below, plaintiffs are likely tosucceed on the merits.A. Connecticut’s Byzantine Ballot Access Rules for Multi-town andStatewide Primaries Impose a Severe and Undue Burden on Voters’First Amendment Rights.The Supreme Court has held that the “right to vote is ‘heavily burdened’ if thatvote may be cast only for one of two candidates in a primary election at a time whenother candidates are clamoring for a place on the ballot.” Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709,716 (1974) (quoting Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 31 (198)). While Lubin dealt withprimary ballot access that was impermissibly burdened by filing fees, other primaryballot access requirements may operate to impermissibly burden voter choice. SeeRockefeller, 917 F. Supp. at 159 (applying Lubin to New York’s signature and technicalfiling requirements for access to the Republican Presidential primary ballot).Connecticut’s rules for multi-town primary ballot access burden the right to vote farbeyond that imagined in Lubin – for in these districts, the right to vote in the primary isoften cut off completely and the exercise of the right is often dependant upon theapproval of party leadership.In Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983), the Supreme Courtestablished the test for determining whether a State’s ballot access requirements place anunconstitutional “undue burden” on First Amendment rights. The Court eschewed a“litmus paper” test for separating valid from invalid restrictions and set out a three-stepbalancing test. Id. First, a reviewing court “must consider the character and the24