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

single-town state house districts with the number of primaries in multi-town state housedistricts. Election data from the past 22 years demonstrate that single-town districts havehad significantly more primaries. See McLoughlin Decl. at Exhibit C. Indeed, when anincumbent is running, the difference between single-town and multi-town districtsbecomes even more stark: when an incumbent is seeking re-election, single-town housedistricts have had almost nine times more primaries than multi-town districts. Id.The evidence of the severe burdens imposed by Connecticut law on voters andcandidates in multi-town districts cannot be disputed. It is clear that this law operates toseverely burden candidates’ ability to get on the ballot in multi-town districts and theirsupporters’ ability to participate in the party’s nominating process, while candidates andvoters in single-town districts are provided a simple petition system for ballot access.Neither the severely burdensome requirements imposed on candidates in multi-towndistricts nor the dual system itself are related to any legitimate government purpose. It isunnecessary, unjustifiable, and unreasonable. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780(1983) (striking state law that burdened candidate’s access to ballot without sufficientgovernment justification). See also Molinari v. Powers, 82 F. Supp.2d 57 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (striking New York’s ballot access regime for the Republican Presidential primaryas imposing undue burdens on party members right to vote); Rockefeller v. Powers, 917F. Supp. 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) aff’d 78 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996) (same).The Court should strike Connecticut’s primary system for multi-town andstatewide districts as unconstitutional. As in the rest of the nation and in Connecticut’ssingle-town districts, all candidates should be permitted to gain primary ballot status bypetitioning.4