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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

McLoughlin Decl. at Exhibit C. But, even more tellingly, election data since 1980demonstrate that incumbents in multi-town state house districts are almost neverchallenged while incumbents in single-town districts are challenged in 11.7 % of their reelectionbids. Id. These stark differences demonstrate the burdens imposed on candidatesseeking ballot access in multi-town districts, and the statistics demonstrating how fewincumbents face a challenge in multi-town districts highlight the severity of the burdenimposed on challenger candidates. See Molinari, 82 F. Supp.2d at 70-71; Rockefeller,917 F. Supp. at 163.c. The ballot access regime for multi-town districts forcesdisfavored candidates to complete a gauntlet of requirementsthat impose a severe burden on the party leadership’s nonfavoredcandidates.Connecticut’s system of ballot access for multi-town and statewide offices forcescandidates – who are not the party’s favorite – to spend months wooing party insiders inan intense campaign to win some delegates and, then, to petition for and then run in preprimaryprimaries just to get a chance to obtain the 15% convention delegate support inorder to, then, run in the real primary. Meanwhile, for the party leadership’s favoredcandidates – particularly incumbents – ballot access is a cakewalk. See, e.g., NielsenDecl. at 8. Forty-six years of election history, as well as the testimony of peopleintimate with the system, make clear that this system routinely shuts out any candidatewho is opposing an incumbent and severely burdens those who are not party favorites inopen races.In considering, these severe burdens, the court must address “the inevitablequestion for judgment[:]30
[C]ould a reasonably diligent independent candidate be expected to satisfy the ...requirements or will it be only rarely that the unaffiliated candidate will succeedin getting on the ballot?Storer, 415 U.S. at 742. See also Molinari, 82 F. Supp.2d at 70 (quoting Storer andconstruing “independent” and “unaffiliated” to mean independent of party leadership);Rockefeller, 917 F.Supp. at 165 (same).For statewide and congressional offices, the answer to that question is, almostnever – given that only once has an incumbent faced a primary challenge for any of theseoffices since 1956. For state House and Senate races in multi-town districts, the answeris, rarely. But even if the rare challenger is able to obtain ballot status against anincumbent, there will always be a large number – the great majority – of multi-towndistricts where there is no primary because no challenger has been able to obtain ballotstatus. This system of protecting incumbents and party favorites severely burdens theright to vote in multi-town districts. See Rockefeller, 917 F. Supp. at 165 (such a scheme“heavily burdens the right to vote”); Smith v. Board of Election Comm’rs, 587 F. Supp. at1150 (limiting competition for party nominations “undermine[s] the diversity and vigorand party of our political parties). Cf. California Dem. Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 581(2000) (ability of party leadership to endorse a candidate is simply no substitute for theparty members’ ability to choose their own nominee).Connecticut’s multi-town primary ballot access scheme “is unconstitutional,”unless “justified by any sufficiently compelling state interest.” Rockefeller, 917 F. Supp.at 165. Far from being justified by a compelling state interest, Connecticut’s system formulti-town primary ballot access is not justified by any rational state interest.31
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 22 and 23: for delegate slates, is more burden
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 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?