Williams v. Rhodes
393 U.S. 23 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's election laws that impose such heavy burdens on new or minority political parties as to make it virtually impossible for them to gain a place on the ballot, while granting established parties a significant advantage, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Ohio election laws required a new political party to obtain petitions signed by qualified electors totaling 15% of the number of ballots cast in the last gubernatorial election to gain ballot access.
- The established Republican and Democratic parties could retain their ballot position simply by obtaining 10% of the votes in the last gubernatorial election, without any signature petition requirement.
- In addition to the signature requirement, new parties had to meet an early filing deadline of February 7, 1968, for the November election.
- New parties were also required to establish a complex party structure, including electing committee members and delegates through a primary, which created further substantial hurdles.
- The Ohio American Independent Party, formed in January 1968 to support George C. Wallace, collected over 450,000 signatures, exceeding the 433,100 required.
- Because the American Independent Party could not gather the signatures before the February 7 deadline, Ohio's Secretary of State refused to place it on the ballot.
- The Socialist Labor Party, a small but long-established political party, had been unable to secure ballot position in Ohio since 1948 due to the restrictive laws.
- Ohio's laws made no provision for independent (non-party) presidential candidates to get on the ballot.
Procedural Posture:
- The Ohio American Independent Party and the Socialist Labor Party filed separate suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Ohio's restrictive election laws.
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the cases.
- The District Court held that Ohio's laws were unconstitutional but, citing laches (undue delay), denied the parties' request for a place on the 1968 presidential ballot.
- The District Court granted the limited relief of requiring Ohio to provide for write-in voting.
- Both the Ohio American Independent Party (appellant) and the Socialist Labor Party (appellant) appealed the District Court's denial of ballot placement directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, with Ohio officials as appellees.
- The American Independent Party sought an emergency injunction from Circuit Justice Stewart, who ordered the party's name placed on the ballot pending the appeal.
- The Socialist Labor Party later sought a similar injunction, which Justice Stewart denied as untimely.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Ohio's election laws, which impose a 15% petition signature requirement, an early filing deadline, and a complex party structure requirement on new political parties, while imposing substantially lesser burdens on established parties, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
Yes. The totality of Ohio's restrictive election laws imposes a burden on voting and associational rights that constitutes an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The state's laws place substantially unequal burdens on the right to vote and the right to associate, which are fundamental rights. Because these fundamental rights are at stake, the state must show a 'compelling state interest' to justify the restrictions. Ohio’s asserted interests—promoting a two-party system, ensuring the election winner has majority support, and preventing voter confusion—are not sufficiently compelling to justify the severe restrictions that effectively give the Republican and Democratic parties a monopoly on the ballot. Competition in ideas is at the core of the electoral process and First Amendment freedoms, and new parties must have a real opportunity to organize and get on the ballot.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Yes. The decision is correct, but it is rooted primarily in the First Amendment rights of association and political expression, made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The 'totality of Ohio’s requirements' effectively suffocates the right of association, the promotion of political ideas, and the right to vote. When these fundamental First Amendment rights are at issue, the government does not have a 'compelling interest' that can justify abridging them, as the drafters of the Bill of Rights already performed the necessary 'balancing' in favor of protecting these freedoms.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes. The decision is correct, but it should rest entirely on the First Amendment right of political association, protected against state infringement by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Equal Protection Clause. By denying new parties any meaningful opportunity to participate in the presidential selection process, Ohio has eliminated the basic incentive for political organization and activity. The state has not advanced an impelling policy justification for this infringement. The 15% signature requirement itself is unconstitutional because it is not reasonably related to the state's legitimate interest in preventing voter confusion.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
No. Ohio's election laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Article II, § 1 of the Constitution grants state legislatures broad and exclusive power to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. The Fourteenth Amendment places only minimal limits on this power. The Ohio laws should be reviewed under a rational basis standard, not strict scrutiny, and they easily pass this test. The state has a legitimate objective in preventing splinter parties from preventing a majority winner and ensuring political stability, and its laws are a reasonable means of achieving that objective.
Dissenting - Justice White
No. The American Independent Party is not entitled to relief because it failed to comply with the state's filing deadline, a valid precondition for ballot access. The party did not even attempt to file its signatures on time. The Court should not invalidate the entire statutory scheme because some of its provisions might be unconstitutional when the party failed to meet a requirement that may well be valid on its own.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Warren
No. The appellants should not be granted the extraordinary equitable relief they seek. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying ballot placement because the parties were guilty of laches by waiting too long to file their lawsuits, especially so close to an election. This decision treats the two appellant parties differently without a principled reason and forces a major constitutional ruling without the unhurried deliberation such questions deserve. The result is that the Supreme Court is essentially writing a new election law for Ohio, usurping the authority of the state legislature.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established that state ballot access laws are subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment when they significantly burden the fundamental rights of voting and political association. By rejecting the state's asserted interests as not 'compelling' enough to justify a near-monopoly for the two major parties, the Court opened the door for challenges to overly restrictive election laws nationwide. The case serves as a crucial precedent for minority parties and independent candidates, affirming that the electoral process must be open to competition in ideas and cannot be structured to entrench the power of established parties. Future cases would build on this framework, balancing state interests in orderly elections against the associational rights of voters and candidates.
