Burdick v. Takushi

United States Supreme Court
504 U.S. 428 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state's prohibition on write-in voting does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments when the state's overall election scheme provides adequate and reasonable ballot access, and the ban is justified by the state's important regulatory interests.

Facts:

Alan Burdick was a registered voter in Honolulu, Hawaii.
In the 1986 primary election for his district's seat in the Hawaii House of Representatives, only one candidate had filed nominating papers.
Burdick wished to vote for a candidate who was not on the official ballot.
After inquiring with state officials, Burdick was informed via an Attorney General's opinion letter that Hawaii's election law made no provision for write-in voting.
Hawaii's election system provides several avenues for ballot access, including paths for new parties, established parties, and nonpartisan candidates, with deadlines for filing nominating papers set 60 days before the primary election.

Procedural Posture:

Alan Burdick sued state election officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the state's ban on write-in voting.
The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the state to permit write-in voting.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction and vacated the judgment, ordering the District Court to abstain until the Supreme Court of Hawaii could interpret the state's election laws.
The Supreme Court of Hawaii answered certified questions, holding that state law barred write-in voting and that this bar was consistent with the state constitution.
The U.S. District Court then granted Burdick's renewed motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief against the ban.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, upholding the constitutionality of Hawaii's write-in voting ban.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.

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 Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting unreasonably infringe upon a citizen's right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

No. Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting does not unreasonably infringe upon a citizen's right to vote. The Court applies a flexible balancing test, weighing the character and magnitude of the injury to the voter's rights against the state's interests justifying the burden. When a state's election laws impose only 'reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions' on voting rights, as Hawaii's do through its adequate ballot access provisions, the state's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify them. The burden on voters is limited, primarily affecting those who make a late decision. The state's interests in preventing factionalism, avoiding 'sore-loser' candidacies, guarding against party raiding, and maintaining an orderly two-stage election process are legitimate and sufficient to outweigh the minimal burden imposed by the write-in ban.

Dissenting - Justice Kennedy

Yes. Hawaii's total ban on write-in voting imposes a significant burden on the right to vote. The majority's presumption that a write-in ban is valid if ballot access laws are otherwise constitutional is circular and incorrect. Hawaii's ballot access system is more restrictive than the majority portrays, as evidenced by the large number of unopposed races and blank ballots cast, indicating voter dissatisfaction. For a voter who finds no acceptable candidate on the ballot, the ban is a total infringement on the right to cast a meaningful vote. The state's proffered justifications, such as preventing sore-loser candidacies and party raiding, are not compelling and could be addressed by narrower, less restrictive means. The write-in ban eliminates an important 'safety valve' for voters, especially when issues or information about candidates emerge late in an election.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the flexible, two-tiered balancing test from Anderson v. Celebrezze for evaluating challenges to election regulations, affirming that not all burdens on voting rights trigger strict scrutiny. By upholding a complete ban on write-in voting where ballot access is deemed adequate, the Court grants states significant latitude to regulate the manner of elections to ensure fairness and order. The case establishes that a prohibition on write-in voting is presumptively valid if a state's overall ballot access scheme is constitutional, making it more difficult for voters to successfully challenge such restrictions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Burdick v. Takushi (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"