Munro v. Socialist Workers Party
479 U.S. 189 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may constitutionally condition a minor-party candidate's access to the general election ballot on a requirement that the candidate receive at least 1% of the total votes cast for that office in the state's primary election.
Facts:
- In 1977, the State of Washington amended its election laws, imposing a new requirement for minor-party candidates to access the general election ballot.
- The law required a minor-party candidate, nominated by convention, to first appear on the state's 'blanket primary' ballot.
- To qualify for the general election ballot, the candidate then had to receive at least 1% of the total votes cast for that particular office in the primary.
- In a 1983 special primary election for a U.S. Senate seat, Dean Peoples was the nominee of the Socialist Workers Party (Party).
- Thirty-three candidates, including Peoples, appeared on the primary ballot for the office.
- Peoples received approximately 0.09% of the total votes cast for the office, which was less than the 1% statutory threshold.
- Consequently, the State of Washington did not place Peoples' name on the general election ballot.
Procedural Posture:
- Dean Peoples, the Socialist Workers Party, and two registered voters sued the State of Washington in United States District Court, seeking relief from the 1% primary vote requirement.
- The U.S. District Court, as the court of first instance, entered judgment denying relief to the plaintiffs.
- Peoples and the Party, as appellants, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the district court's judgment, holding the state law unconstitutional.
- The State of Washington, as appellant, then filed an appeal with 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 law that requires a minor-party candidate to receive at least 1% of all votes cast for that office in a primary election in order to be placed on the general election ballot violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, the law does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. States have an undoubted right to require candidates to make a preliminary showing of a significant modicum of support to qualify for a place on the general election ballot. Washington's 1% primary vote requirement is a reasonable, non-discriminatory restriction that furthers the state's compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process, avoiding voter confusion, and ensuring the general election ballot is reserved for serious contenders. The state is not required to prove pre-existing voter confusion before enacting such a measure; it may act proactively. Because Washington's blanket primary gives minor-party candidates access to the entire electorate and a ballot-connected platform to espouse their views, the burden on their associational rights is slight compared to the state's legitimate interests.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ballot access restrictions that burden the fundamental rights of association and voting must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. This law fails that test. Rather than preventing ballot overcrowding, it merely shifts the problem to the primary election while, in practice, acting as an almost total bar to minor-party candidates in statewide general elections. Access to a primary ballot is not a constitutionally adequate substitute for access to the general election ballot, where the most meaningful political debate occurs. The law effectively protects major parties from competition and denies minor parties a real, not merely theoretical, opportunity to participate in the electoral process.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a state's authority to regulate ballot access by requiring candidates to demonstrate a minimum level of public support. It establishes that using a primary election vote percentage is a constitutionally permissible mechanism for this purpose, treating it as analogous to petition signature requirements upheld in prior cases. The ruling gives legislatures significant leeway, affirming they can act 'with foresight rather than reactively' to potential election problems like ballot clutter, without needing to present empirical proof of pre-existing harm. This precedent makes it more difficult for minor parties to challenge ballot access laws based on their exclusionary effects, provided the threshold for support is not deemed facially insurmountable.
Unlock the full brief for Munro v. Socialist Workers Party