Jenness v. Fortson
403 U.S. 431, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 24, 29 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state election law requiring an independent candidate to file a nominating petition signed by 5% of eligible voters does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments, provided the state’s overall election system provides reasonable alternative routes to ballot access and does not operate to freeze the political status quo.
Facts:
- Under Georgia law, a 'political party' is an organization whose candidate received 20% or more of the vote in the last gubernatorial or presidential election; its nominees gain ballot access by winning a party primary.
- Any other political organization is a 'political body,' and its candidates, along with independent candidates, can have their names printed on the general election ballot only by filing a nominating petition.
- The nominating petition must be signed by a number of electors equal to at least 5% of the total number of electors eligible to vote in the last election for that office.
- Candidates have a 180-day period to collect these signatures, with the filing deadline being the same as for candidates in a party primary.
- Georgia's system freely allows for write-in votes for any candidate.
- A voter is permitted to sign a nominating petition even if they have signed other petitions, and signing a petition does not prevent them from later voting in a party primary.
- Jenness and other prospective candidates associated with the Georgia Socialist Workers Party wished to appear on the ballot without meeting the 5% petition requirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Jenness and other prospective candidates and registered voters filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- The suit challenged the constitutionality of Georgia's 5% nominating petition requirement and a separate filing-fee requirement.
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs regarding the filing-fee requirement, which was not appealed.
- The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction against the 5% nominating-petition requirement, upholding its constitutionality.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, brought a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the District Court's refusal to enjoin the petition requirement.
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 Georgia's election law, which requires an independent candidate or a candidate from a political body to secure signatures from 5% of the eligible electorate to be placed on the general election ballot, while candidates from political parties gain ballot access by winning a primary, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No, Georgia's election law does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The 5% nominating petition requirement is a constitutionally permissible part of a larger election system that provides reasonable alternative routes to the ballot and does not freeze the political status quo. The Court distinguished this case from Williams v. Rhodes, where Ohio's election laws were found unconstitutional because their 'totality' made it 'virtually impossible' for new parties to get on the ballot. Unlike Ohio's restrictive scheme, Georgia's system allows for write-in votes, recognizes independent candidacies, does not impose unreasonably early filing deadlines, and does not require small parties to establish elaborate primary machinery. The Court found that requiring a preliminary showing of a 'significant modicum of support' serves the state's important interest in avoiding ballot confusion and ensuring an orderly democratic process. The alternative paths to the ballot—winning a primary or gathering signatures—are not inherently unequal, and treating established parties differently from new ones is not invidious discrimination when their needs and potentials are different.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the Court's stance on ballot access laws, establishing that not all restrictions are unconstitutional. It refined the holding of Williams v. Rhodes by moving away from a strict scrutiny of all ballot access laws and toward a more flexible balancing test that considers the state's overall electoral scheme. The case provides states with a constitutional safe harbor for imposing reasonable signature requirements on independent and minor-party candidates, as long as the system as a whole remains open and does not create insurmountable barriers. This ruling affirms the state's legitimate interest in managing its ballots and ensuring that candidates have a baseline of public support, a principle that has since guided lower court analyses of election regulations.
