Storer et al. v. Brown, Secretary of State of California, et al.
415 U.S. 724 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, in the interest of political stability, require an independent candidate to be disaffiliated from a political party for a reasonable period before a primary election. The constitutionality of other ballot access requirements, such as signature petitions, depends on the totality of the circumstances and the actual burden they impose on a candidate's ability to gain ballot access.
Facts:
- The California Elections Code required independent candidates for public office to meet several conditions to appear on the general election ballot.
- One provision, § 6830(d), barred any candidate who had been registered with a qualified political party at any time within one year prior to the immediately preceding primary election.
- Storer and Frommhagen both sought to run for Congress as independent candidates in the 1972 election.
- Storer had been a registered Democrat until January 1972, and Frommhagen had been registered as a Democrat until March 1972, both falling within the one-year disaffiliation window.
- Other provisions required an independent candidate to file nomination papers signed by voters numbering 5% to 6% of the total votes cast in the preceding general election.
- The eligible pool of signers for these petitions excluded any person who had voted in the preceding primary election.
- These signatures had to be collected within a 24-day period following the primary election.
- Hall and Tyner, members of the Communist Party (which was not a qualified party), sought to run as independent candidates for President and Vice President and were subject to these signature requirements.
Procedural Posture:
- Storer, Frommhagen, Hall, and Tyner filed separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that sections of the California Elections Code were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement.
- A three-judge District Court was convened and considered the cases together.
- The District Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged statutes and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints.
- The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
- The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated the cases for review.
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 California's election law, which (1) prohibits an independent candidate from being on the ballot if they had a registered party affiliation within one year prior to the preceding primary, and (2) requires independent candidates to gather signatures from 5% of the total votes cast in the last general election, from a pool of voters that excludes primary voters, within a 24-day period, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No as to the disaffiliation requirement; Remanded as to the signature requirements. The one-year disaffiliation requirement for independent candidates does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it serves a compelling state interest in the stability of its political system. The state has a legitimate purpose in protecting its direct primary system from factionalism, intraparty feuds, and candidacies prompted by short-range political goals. This requirement, which prevents defeated primary candidates from running as independents and ensures that independent candidates are truly independent, is a reasonable part of the state's overall election mechanism. The burden on the candidate to decide their status in advance is outweighed by the state's compelling interest. Regarding the signature requirements, the case is remanded because the constitutional analysis depends on the actual burden imposed, which cannot be determined from the current record. It is necessary to determine the size of the available pool of eligible signers (after excluding all primary voters) to assess whether requiring 5% of the total vote from the previous election constitutes an unconstitutionally high percentage of that available pool, especially given the short 24-day collection period.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. California's election laws unconstitutionally burden the rights of independent candidates and voters. The disaffiliation rule, which effectively requires a candidate to declare their independence 17 months before the general election, is an unreasonable and overly burdensome restriction that freezes the political status quo. The state's interests could be served by less drastic means, such as a shorter disaffiliation period. Furthermore, the signature requirements are unconstitutional on their face and do not require a remand. The available data shows that the 5% requirement, when applied to the restricted pool of non-primary voters, actually requires signatures from approximately 9.5% of eligible signers, a burden that must be met in a mere 24 days. This combination of a high percentage requirement and a short timeframe is an unconstitutionally severe burden on the right to associate and vote effectively.
Analysis:
This case establishes a bifurcated approach to analyzing state ballot access laws. It affirms a state's compelling interest in political stability and the integrity of the primary system, thereby validating reasonable disaffiliation requirements that prevent "sore loser" candidacies. At the same time, it mandates a practical, evidence-based inquiry into the cumulative burden of signature requirements. By remanding the signature issue for factual development, the Court signaled that lower courts must look beyond the facial percentage of a petition requirement and analyze its real-world impact based on the size of the eligible voter pool and the time constraints involved. This creates a flexible but fact-intensive standard for assessing the constitutionality of ballot access regulations.
Unlock the full brief for Storer et al. v. Brown, Secretary of State of California, et al.