[i]t may well be that the state has not chosen a reasonable signature requirement in serving its compelling interests. The magnitude of the 10% signature requirement gives cause for reflection on this point. However, that determination will have to await a more complete consideration on the merits and facts of this case.
contrary to the constitutional theme of equality among citizens in the exercise of their political rights. The idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.
a reasonably diligent independent candidate [can] be expected to satisfy the signature requirements, or will it be only rarely that the unaffiliated candidate will succeed in getting on the ballot.... Past experience will be a helpful, if not unerring, guide: it will be one thing if independent candidates have qualified with some regularity and quite a different matter if they have not.
first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests; it must also consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights.
Signatures | Signatures | ||
---|---|---|---|
Name | Required | Filed | Percentage |
Edward W. Gjertsen | 1,822 | 880 | 4.8% |
Herman A. Schell, Jr. | 2,810 | 1,000 | 3.6% |
Joseph W. Smith | 3,174 | 2,042 | 6.4% |
William T. Margalus | 2,058 | 2,469 | 12.0% |
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |