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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In addition, the court’s assessment of the government’s potential interestsjustifying the dual system do not withstand the scrutiny of Connecticut’s electoral historyor ballot access practices in the rest of the nation. For instance, the Tansley courtemphasized that the legislature could have believed that conventions better representedthe interests of party members from districts with multiple municipalities. Id. at 517.Aside from the serious question about whether this assertion is logical, the legislativehistory from the 1955 enactment and from efforts to amend the law in 1993 and 2000hardly support a finding that the purpose of the multi-town system is to ensure that allinterests are represented in the nominating process. See Rapoport Decl. at 10-11, 12-13 (discussing the background of the 1955 enactment and efforts to amend the law in1993). See also, 4/25/01 House Session Transcript, supra; 5/17/01 Senate SessionTranscript, supra.In addition, the state’s potential “interest in not having wide open primaries,”Tansley, 315 F. Supp. at 517, can certainly be met with a significantly less burdensomesystem. This is abundantly proven by the evidence of the number of primaries in singletowndistricts over the last 20 years, where there are significantly more primaries than inmulti-town districts, but the system is hardly flooded. See McLoughlin Decl. at ExhibitC. Furthermore, almost every other state in the nation is able to satisfy this same interestwith a far more open system of primary ballot access. See 50-State Chart. See alsoHolman Decl. at Exhibits A & B (demonstrating that even states with minimal ballotaccess requirements are not “overrun” with candidates).and in comparison with the rest of the nation. Thus, the rational basis test is simplyinapplicable under current ballot access jurisprudence.34
Similarly, the burdens imposed on candidates in multi-town districts are notnecessary to further the state’s interest in “maintaining the integrity and stability ofpolitical parties.” Tansley, 315 F. Supp. at 517. Again, 44 other states and the District ofColumbia are able to satisfy this interest with less burdensome rules that permit access tothe primary ballot by the filing of a petition or payment of a, usually, modest fee. See 50-State Chart.In addition, the Supreme Court in Anderson suggested that legislative decisions toprotect the major parties may not be entitled to deference. While agreeing that protectingthe integrity of political parties was a legitimate interest, the Court stated “we did notsuggest that a political party could invoke the powers of the State to assure monolithiccontrol over its own members and supporters.” 460 U.S. at 803. See also Rockefeller,917 F. Supp. at 164 (applying statement in Anderson to review of New York State’sprimary ballot access laws).Connecticut’s electoral history over the past 47 years – with its dearth ofprimaries in multi-town districts – suggests that the state legislature may well have actedto secure the party leadership’s control over the nomination process for most offices.Indeed, the legislative history of attempts to amend the dual system also indicates that thelegislative rationale behind the law is a kind of incumbency protection and party control.See Rapoport Decl. at 12-13. After all, amendments to the law overwhelminglypassed the House, which has many single-town districts, in 1993 and 2000, but failed inthe Senate. See Rapoport Decl. 15-16; 4/25/01 House Session Transcript, supra;5/17/01 Senate Session Transcript, supra.35
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRIC
Page 3 and 4: II.PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT AN
Page 5 and 6: Plaintiffs respectfully submit this
Page 7 and 8: five states permit the major partie
Page 9 and 10: STATEMENT OF FACTSA. Connecticut’
Page 11 and 12: least 15% of their convention’s d
Page 13 and 14: Because the committee members, part
Page 15: against the town’s slate for the
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: for delegate slates, is more burden
Page 25 and 26: Because plaintiffs can show that th
Page 27 and 28: not be harmed by this new rule. Obv
Page 29 and 30: magnitude of the asserted injury to
Page 31 and 32: a. The burdens are severe when comp
Page 33 and 34: Mortham, 155 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11 th
Page 35 and 36: [C]ould a reasonably diligent indep
Page 37: town line. This demonstrates that C
Page 41 and 42: B. Because Connecticut’s Dual Sys
Page 43 and 44: candidate named in the petition. Id

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?