Blomquist v. Thomson

591 F. Supp. 768, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19379
CourtDistrict Court, D. Wyoming
DecidedFebruary 17, 1984
DocketNo. C83-0318-B
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 591 F. Supp. 768 (Blomquist v. Thomson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Wyoming primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blomquist v. Thomson, 591 F. Supp. 768, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19379 (D. Wyo. 1984).

Opinion

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BRIMMER, District Judge.

This matter came on regularly to be heard by the Court upon the cross motions of the parties for summary judgment, James C. Linger, Esq., and Robert E. Skar, Esq., appearing for plaintiffs, and Rowena L. Heckert, Esq., Assistant Wyoming Attorney General, appearing for defendant, and the Court having read and considered the pleadings, and briefs of the parties and the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

Plaintiffs are members of the Wyoming Libertarian party, and are residents of the State of Wyoming. Defendant is the Secretary of State for the State of Wyoming, and has been sued in her official capacity only. Plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that various provisions in the Wyoming Election Code, W.S. Sections 22-1-101 et seq. (1977), violate their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and seek injunctive relief. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action, and venue is properly in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. There are no genuinely disputed issues as to any material fact, and it is appropriate for this Court to determine this matter upon the [770]*770cross motions for summary judgment filed herein.

Standard of Review.

Plaintiffs challenge the validity of W.S. Sections 22-l-102(g), 22-5-201, 22-5-209, 22-5-212, 22-5-215, 22-5-301, 22-5-303, 22-5-304, 22-5-305, and 22-5-307 of the Wyoming Election Code, alleging that such provisions unduly and unnecessarily restrict plaintiffs’ right to ballot access. The threshold issue of this case is the level of judicial scrutiny to which said provisions may be subjected. Defendant has not denied that such challenged provisions implicate fundamental rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ballot access restrictions burden two fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, the right to political association, and the right to cast votes effectively. Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979), citing Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). The Supreme Court has held that when such “vital individual rights are at stake,” the state must establish a “compelling interest” and must “adopt the least drastic means to achieve [its] ends.” Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, supra 440 U.S. at pp. 184-185, 99 S.Ct. at 990-991; Arutunoff v. Oklahoma State Election Board, 687 F.2d 1375, 1381 (10th Cir.1982, J. Seymour dissenting); McLain v. Meier, 637 F.2d 1159, 1163 (8th Cir.1980); American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 780-781, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1305-1306, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974).

However, no hard-and-fast general rule or standard exists by which to measure state ballot access laws. Arutunoff v. Oklahoma State Elections Board, supra at p. 1379. Each case must be resolved on its own facts, after due consideration is given to the practical effect of election laws of a given state, viewed in their totality. Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 102 S.Ct. 2836, 73 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982). The Court should conduct a careful examination of the challenged statute, and determine whether or not the statute may withstand close scrutiny. The statute should be upheld if the Court determines it advances compelling state interests, that it accomplishes important state goals, and that it does not unduly burden constitutional rights of political parties and their members. However, if the Court determines the statute is unnecessarily oppressive, it should declare it to be unconstitutional. Id.; McLain v. Meier, 637 F.2d 1163.

Challenged Provisions of the Wyoming Election Code:

W.S. Section 22-l-102(g) (1977) defines the term “political party,” stating “ ‘Political party’ is a party whose candidate for representative in the congress [sic] of the United States received at least ten percent (10%) of the total vote cast at the last preceding election.” Candidates for partisan political offices are either nominees of such “political parties,” or are deemed to be “Independent candidates,” which is defined by Section 22-l-102(f) as “a person who is running for nomination or election to a public office but who does not represent a political party.”

Section 22-5-101 provides for only two means by which a candidate may be nominated for partisan offices filled at a general election. One is by primary election under Sections 22-5-201 to 22-5-215, which is only available to “political parties” as defined above. A political party at a primary election may nominate an entire slate of candidates for public office for the next subsequent general election without being required to show any modicum of support for any individual nominee. Section 22-6-101. The other means is by nomination as an independent candidate through a petitioning process provided in Sections 22-5-301 to 22-5-308. In order to obtain ballot access by petition each potential candidate must file a separate petition supported by signatures of registered electors numbering at least five (5%) of the number of votes cast for representative in Congress in the last general election in the political subdivision for which the petition is filed. [771]*771Section 22-5-301. Such petitions may be circulated for signatures only during the calendar year in which the election for the office sought is to be held. Section 22-5-305(a). The petition must be filed not more than ninety (90) days nor less than forty-five (45) days before a general or special election. Section 22-5-307. If a potential candidate succeeds in obtaining ballot access under Sections 22-5-301 to 22-5-308 he will be listed as an independent candidate upon the partisan general election paper ballot. Section 22-6-120(a)(vii). Candidates nominated by political parties through primary elections are listed on said ballot according to party affiliation, which affiliation is clearly set forth upon the ballot. Sections 22-6-120(a)(vi), 22-6-116, 22-6-121.

No other means for ballot access in partisan general elections are provided in the Wyoming Election Code. Thus, by implication, a new political party, or a minor political party, may obtain party access to the ballot only by the following means:

(A) Such party must file a petition on behalf of their candidate for representative in Congress supported by signatures of registered electors numbering at least five percent of the number of votes cast for representative in Congress in the last general election for the State of Wyoming at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next general election.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
591 F. Supp. 768, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blomquist-v-thomson-wyd-1984.