Bullock et al. v. Carter et al.
405 U.S. 134 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's primary election filing fee system that conditions a candidate's access to the ballot on the ability to pay a substantial fee, without providing a reasonable alternative means of ballot access, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Under Texas law, candidates for public office were required to pay a filing fee to have their names placed on a primary election ballot.
- The amount of the fee for most local offices was determined by the party's county executive committee, which apportioned the estimated cost of the primary among candidates.
- Pate was unable to pay the $1,424.60 fee required to run for County Commissioner in El Paso County.
- Wischkaemper was unable to pay the $6,300 fee required to run for County Judge in Tarrant County.
- Carter was unable to pay the $1,000 fee required to run for Commissioner of the General Land Office.
- The Texas statutory scheme provided no alternative method, such as a nominating petition, for an indigent candidate to gain access to the primary ballot.
- Write-in votes were not permitted in primary elections for public office in Texas.
Procedural Posture:
- Pate, Wischkaemper, and Carter were denied places on their respective Democratic primary ballots for failing to pay the required filing fees.
- They filed separate actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenging the constitutionality of the Texas filing-fee system.
- The cases were consolidated, and a three-judge District Court was convened.
- Jenkins and Guzman were permitted to intervene as voters who wished to support the candidates.
- The District Court issued a preliminary order allowing Pate and Wischkaemper to run in the primary without pre-paying the fees.
- Following a hearing, the District Court declared the Texas filing-fee statutes unconstitutional and permanently enjoined their enforcement.
- The State of Texas, through its Secretary of State, filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's statutory primary election filing fee system, which requires candidates to pay substantial fees to get on the ballot and provides no alternative means of access, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. A state filing fee system that requires candidates to pay substantial fees to get on a primary ballot, with no alternative means of access, violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Court determined that the Texas filing-fee scheme must be subjected to close scrutiny because it has a real and appreciable impact on the franchise by limiting the choices available to voters, particularly those of modest means. While the state has legitimate interests in regulating the ballot and financing its elections, the means chosen were not reasonably necessary to achieve those goals. The Court found that using wealth as a proxy for the seriousness of a candidate is 'extraordinarily ill-fitted' to the goal of weeding out frivolous candidates, as it excludes serious but indigent candidates while allowing wealthy but non-serious ones to run. Furthermore, the state failed to demonstrate that financing primaries through candidate fees was a necessary method, as it could fund them from general revenues, just as it does for general elections. The system unconstitutionally erects a barrier to the ballot based on a candidate's ability to pay.
Analysis:
This case is significant for applying strict scrutiny to a ballot access law that directly affects candidates rather than voters. The Court reasoned that substantial barriers to candidacy have a direct and appreciable impact on voters' rights by limiting the field of candidates. This decision established that wealth is a suspect classification in the context of ballot access and that states must provide reasonable alternative means, such as nominating petitions, for indigent candidates to get on the ballot. It set a precedent that laws regulating elections must not only be for a legitimate state purpose but must also be narrowly tailored so as not to unduly burden the rights of voters and candidates based on economic status.
Unlock the full brief for Bullock et al. v. Carter et al.