Duke v. Massey
87 F.3d 1226 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state has a compelling interest in protecting a political party's First Amendment right of association, which includes the right to define its membership and message. A state statute that allows a party's designated committee to exclude a candidate from its presidential primary ballot is a narrowly tailored means of advancing that interest and does not unconstitutionally burden the rights of the candidate or voters.
Facts:
- David Duke sought the Republican Party's nomination for President of the United States for the 1992 election.
- In December 1991, Georgia's Secretary of State, Max Cleland, included Duke's name on an initial list of potential candidates for the Republican presidential preference primary.
- This list was submitted to the Republican Party's presidential candidate selection committee (Committee), which consisted of three party leaders: the state party Chairperson, the Senate Minority Leader, and the House Minority Leader.
- On December 16, 1991, the Committee met and unanimously agreed to delete Duke's name from the list of candidates, as permitted by the Georgia statute.
- The Secretary of State subsequently published the official list of candidates for the primary ballot, which did not include Duke's name.
- Duke then petitioned to have his name placed on the ballot, triggering a reconsideration by the Committee.
- At the reconsideration meeting, no member of the Committee voted to place Duke's name on the ballot, a procedure which would have required only a single member's vote to succeed.
Procedural Posture:
- David Duke and his supporters filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Secretary of State and the Republican candidate selection committee.
- The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to compel the state to place Duke's name on the 1992 Republican presidential primary ballot.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the injunction in a prior decision (Duke I).
- Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, challenging the constitutionality of the Georgia statute that permitted the Committee to remove Duke's name.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no constitutional violation and no state action.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case (Duke II), holding that the Committee's action was state action and instructing the district court to balance the state's interests against the burdens on the plaintiffs' rights.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the statute was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment 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 Georgia statute that allows a political party's candidate selection committee to exclude a candidate from the presidential preference primary ballot violate the candidate's and voters' rights of free speech and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Hatchett, Circuit Judge
No, the Georgia statute does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state has a compelling interest in protecting a political party's First Amendment right of association, and the statute is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Republican Party has a constitutionally protected right to identify the people who constitute its association and to define its own message. This right includes the ability to exclude candidates with adverse political principles, as Duke does not have a right to associate with an "unwilling partner." The burden on Duke's rights is not severe, as he was not foreclosed from running as an independent, third-party, or write-in candidate. Likewise, the burden on his supporters' rights is minimal, as they have no constitutional right to vote for him specifically as a Republican candidate in a primary. The Georgia statute is narrowly tailored because it entrusts the decision to key party leaders who are accountable to the party's membership and are in the best position to determine if a candidate's views align with the party's platform. Furthermore, the statute provides a check on arbitrary power by allowing any single member of the three-person committee to unilaterally place an excluded candidate back on the ballot during reconsideration.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a political party's First Amendment right to freedom of association is a compelling interest that can justify restrictions on ballot access. It affirms the power of states to enact laws that delegate gatekeeping authority to political parties, allowing them to control their primary ballots to protect their ideological identity and brand. The ruling distinguishes between a candidate's right to run for office and the non-existent right to run under the banner of a party that has rejected them. This precedent provides a strong defense for party organizations seeking to exclude candidates they deem ideologically incompatible, potentially impacting future challenges from outsider or fringe candidates seeking to use a major party's ballot line.
Unlock the full brief for Duke v. Massey