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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE <strong>OF</strong> AUTHORITIESAnderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)..………………………………. 4, 24, 25, 26………………………………………………………………………………. 32, 33, 35, 37Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689 (2d. Cir. 1996)………………………………….. 21Buckley v. American Const. Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999)……………….…… 38Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972).………………………………………………… 25Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)………………………………………………...32California Dem. Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000)…………………………………... 31Council of Alternative New Parties v. Hooks, 121 F.3d 876 (3rd Cir. 1997)………….…21Gjersten v. Board of Election Comm’rs, 791 F. 2d 472 (7 th Cir. 1986)……………...29, 38Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1968)………………………………………………. 21, 22Green v. Mortham, 155 F.3d 1332 (11 th Cir. 1998)……………………………………... 28Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979)……. 25, 26……………………………………………………………………………………36, 37, 38Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971)………………………………………... 26, 27, 32Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851 (7 th Cir. 2000)……………………………………….. 39Latino Officers Ass’n v. City of New York, 196 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 1999)………………...20Lerman v. Board of Elections, 232 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2000)………………..………..38, 39Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974)………………………………………………..24, 29Molinari v. Powers, 82 F. Supp.2d 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)…………………. 4, 28, 30, 31, 34Rockefeller v. Powers, 917 F. Supp. 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)……………4, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29………………………………………………………………………..30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36Rockefeller v. Powers, 74 F.3d 1367 (2d Cir. 1996).…………………………………….20Rockefeller v. Powers, 78 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996).………………………...4, 22, 32, 33, 36Smith v. Board of Election Comm’rs, 587 F. Supp. 1136 (N.D. Ill. 1984)….. 29, 31, 36, 38Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974)………………………………………..26, 27, 28, 31Tansley v. Grasso, 315 F. Supp. 513 (D. Conn. 1970)……………………………… 33, 36Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)………………………………………… 24, 25, 26
Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of theirMotion, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to preliminarilyenjoin the enforcement of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-400 and 9-416 in that they impose anundue burden, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on candidates seeking accessto the September 10, 2002 primary ballot in multi-town and statewide districts.PRELIM<strong>IN</strong>ARY STATEMENTFor 47 years, the state of Connecticut has imposed on its citizens a fundamentallyirrational and nationally unique dual system of primary ballot access that creates a severeand often insurmountable burden on the ability of candidates in multi-town and statewidedistricts to gain access to their party’s primary ballot. This ballot access regime, in turn,imposes a severe burden on the ability of rank and file party members in the multi-townand statewide races to participate in their party’s nominating process. These heavyburdens are unreasonable, unjustified, and unnecessary. They simply will not passConstitutional muster.In one set of Connecticut districts, those that cover a single town, candidatesachieve primary ballot status by receiving the party’s endorsement, or by simplygathering the petition signatures of 5% of the district’s registered party members. SeeConn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-390, 9-406. Yet, in all other districts – those that cover more thanone town, including all statewide and congressional offices – candidates are denied theability to obtain primary ballot status by petition. Instead, they are forced by state law towin the support of at least 15% of the delegates to the party’s district convention. See §§9-400, 9-416. To secure the support of these delegates, candidates who are not a clearfavorite of party leadership – particularly those challenging an incumbent – must undergo1
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRIC
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?