## Facts

- Alan B. Burdick, a registered voter in Honolulu, sought to cast write-in votes for candidates not listed on Hawaii’s ballot.
- In 1986, only one candidate filed nominating papers for Burdick’s state House district.
- State election officials, relying on an attorney general opinion, informed Burdick that Hawaii election law provided no mechanism for write-in voting.
- Burdick sued state election officials, claiming the write-in prohibition violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ protections for political expression and association.

## Issues

1. Whether Hawaii’s prohibition on write-in voting unreasonably burdens voters’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
2. What level of constitutional scrutiny applies to an election rule that restricts a method of casting a vote.
3. Whether Hawaii’s asserted interests in election integrity and orderly administration justify a ban on write-in voting within its overall ballot-access scheme.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding Hawaii’s prohibition on write-in voting.
- The Court held that the ban imposed only a limited burden on voting and associational rights because Hawaii provided relatively accessible procedures for candidates to appear on the ballot.
- Applying a flexible balancing approach, the Court concluded Hawaii’s important regulatory interests outweighed the limited burden.
- The Court rejected the view that any burden on voting automatically triggers strict scrutiny.
- Justice Kennedy dissented, concluding the prohibition more seriously impaired voters’ ability to express support for preferred candidates, especially where ballot choice was limited.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional review of election regulations applies a sliding-scale test: courts weigh the character and magnitude of the burden on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights against the state interests asserted and the necessity of the burden.
- Severe restrictions must be narrowly drawn to serve compelling state interests; reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions generally may be justified by important regulatory interests.
- The Constitution does not guarantee an absolute right to cast a write-in vote; states may regulate voting mechanisms when alternative, reasonable avenues for candidate access and voter choice exist.
- A write-in ban may be sustained when it functions as part of a comprehensive election scheme aimed at preventing factionalism, protecting party-nomination processes, and preserving orderly election administration.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Hawaii’s write-in voting ban, concluding that the restriction imposed only a limited burden in light of available ballot-access procedures and was justified by the State’s important interests in maintaining an orderly and stable election system under the Anderson balancing framework.


Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)