7th Circuit rules Indiana can enforce reasonable ballot access restrictions for political candidates

Indiana’s requirements for ballot access by petition are constitutional, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week in upholding a lower court’s ruling and rejecting a legal challenge on behalf of third party political candidates.

According to court records, the plaintiffs in the case were the Indiana Green Party, the Libertarian Party of Indiana, and candidates and other individuals associated or formerly associated with those parties.

They brought the lawsuit against the secretary of state of Indiana in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, with the parties asserting claims under the First Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment, as well as under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

After discovery, the parties and the secretary of state’s office filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs submitted declarations from 17 individuals in support of their summary judgment motion.

These individuals include a former Indiana state legislator, a political science professor, the current chairpersons of the Indiana Green Party and the Libertarian Party of Indiana, individuals affiliated with several independent and third-party presidential candidacies, and other individuals familiar with Indiana’s ballot access requirements, according to the 7th Circuit.

In affirming the district court’s judgment in favor of the secretary of state’s office, the 7th Circuit pointed out that a candidate can obtain ballot access by obtaining signatures numbering at least 2 percent of the total votes cast in their election district in the last election.

The circuit court found that U.S. Supreme Court and 7th Circuit had established precedent that requiring the signatures of 2 percent of the electorate was constitutionally permissible, as was the state’s June 30 filing deadline for submitting signatures to the counties.

It also found that states have broad authority to impose reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions on access to the ballot, with Indiana’s ballot access restrictions challenged in the case easily passing scrutiny that the U.S. Supreme Court and the 7th Circuit have employed in similar cases.

In its ruling, the 7th Circuit noted that it was clear that the restrictions being challenged did not severely burden the plaintiffs’ First and 14th Amendment rights.

The court added that Indiana’s signature requirement is only 2 percent of the votes cast in a midterm election, which was lower than the 5 percent requirements at issue in Storer v. Brown, Jenness, Gill v. Scholz, and the other cases the court noted in its opinion.

“Indiana allows candidates ample time to collect signatures, and the additional hurdle imposed by the county-level submission requirement is no greater than those upheld as part of more burdensome schemes. Moreover, the requirement that parties retain at least 2 percent of the vote in Secretary of State elections to maintain full slate access is reasonable in light of the petitioning alternative and the significance of the ability of a party to place its full slate of candidates on the ballot,” the opinion stated.

Indiana Lawyer reached out to the Indiana Green Party, but did not receive a response Tuesday.