Duke v. Cleland
954 F.2d 1526 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A political party's First Amendment right of association includes the right to exclude from its primary ballot a candidate whose political beliefs are deemed inconsistent with the party's, and this right outweighs the associational and voting rights of the candidate and his supporters.
Facts:
- On December 4, 1991, David Duke announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
- Georgia's Secretary of State, Max Cleland, prepared an initial list of potential presidential candidates for the state's primary, which included Duke's name.
- Cleland submitted this list to the state's presidential candidate selection committee, a body established by Georgia law to finalize the primary ballot.
- On December 16, 1991, all three Republican members of the Committee unanimously agreed to remove Duke's name from the Republican primary ballot.
- The Secretary of State subsequently published the official list of candidates for the primary, omitting Duke's name.
- Before the statutory deadline, Duke made a written request to the Secretary of State to be placed back on the ballot.
- On January 8, 1992, the Committee reconvened to consider Duke's request, but no Republican members asked to add his name, thereby finalizing his exclusion.
Procedural Posture:
- David Duke and several Georgia voters (plaintiffs) sued Georgia's Secretary of State and its presidential candidate selection committee (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the printing of primary ballots unless Duke was listed as a Republican candidate.
- The district court granted the state Republican party chair's motion to intervene as a defendant.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) filed a notice of appeal and an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
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 political party's exclusion of a presidential candidate from its primary ballot, based on the determination that the candidate's political beliefs are inconsistent with the party's, violate the candidate's and his supporters' First Amendment rights of association and right to vote?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Circuit Judge
No, a political party's exclusion of a presidential candidate from its primary ballot based on political beliefs does not violate the First Amendment. The Republican Party has a constitutionally protected freedom of association which includes the right to identify its members and limit the association to those who share its beliefs. A candidate has no right to associate with an 'unwilling partner.' While the voters' right to vote is burdened, the burden is attenuated as they retain the ability to vote for Duke as a write-in or as a third-party candidate in the general election. The state's compelling interest in protecting the party's autonomy and associational rights, as established in precedents like Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, justifies this burden. The party's action was a legitimate exercise of its freedom to protect itself from 'intrusions by those with adverse political principles.'
Dissenting - Kravitch, Circuit Judge
Yes, the exclusion of a candidate from a state-run primary ballot based on political beliefs violates the First Amendment rights of the candidate and his supporters. The state's action significantly burdens the fundamental rights to vote, to associate for political purposes, and to have meaningful access to the ballot, as a write-in candidacy is not an adequate substitute. The state's asserted interest in protecting party autonomy is not compelling enough to justify this infringement, particularly as a primary's purpose is to resolve intra-party disputes. The party's associational rights are not truly infringed by merely including a name on a ballot, as the party remains free to campaign against any candidate it does not endorse. Allowing party leadership this exclusionary power enables them to monopolize power and stifle dissent within the party.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a political party's First Amendment right of association serves as a powerful shield against candidates the party leadership deems ideologically incompatible. It grants party organizations, acting through state-sanctioned processes, significant gatekeeping authority over who may run under their banner. The ruling prioritizes the party's collective right to define its message and membership over an individual candidate's or voter's right to participate in that party's primary, thereby potentially limiting challenges from insurgent or ideologically-divergent candidates.
