## Facts

- California required candidates for certain offices to prepay a nonrefundable filing fee as a condition of receiving nomination papers and appearing on the primary ballot.
- The filing fee for Los Angeles County Supervisor was $701.60, calculated by statute as a percentage of the office’s salary.
- Lubin, otherwise qualified to run, was indigent and could not pay the fee.
- Lubin requested nomination papers without prepaying the fee; the county election official refused under the statute.
- The statutory scheme provided no alternative method for candidates unable to pay (e.g., petition signatures) to obtain ballot access.
- Lubin filed a class action seeking an order requiring issuance of nomination papers without payment, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including equal protection and burdens on political expression and association.
- California courts denied relief, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, require a substantial filing fee as the exclusive means of ballot access for candidates, thereby excluding indigent but otherwise qualified candidates who cannot pay.
2. Whether denying ballot access solely for inability to pay, without an alternative route to qualify, impermissibly burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of political expression and association.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that, absent reasonable alternative means of ballot access, a state may not require an indigent candidate to pay filing fees the candidate cannot pay as the sole route to the ballot.
- The Court accepted the state’s interest in regulating elections and limiting frivolous candidacies but found the exclusive filing-fee requirement not reasonably necessary to serve those interests when it bars indigent candidates outright.
- Concurring opinions agreed the scheme could not stand as applied to indigent candidates, with separate writings emphasizing heightened concern for wealth barriers and caution about the breadth of the Court’s reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- Ballot-access restrictions affecting political association and the effective exercise of the franchise warrant close judicial review and must be reasonably necessary to achieve legitimate state objectives.
- A state may seek to prevent ballot overcrowding and require a preliminary showing of community support, but it must do so through means that do not exclude qualified indigent candidates solely because of inability to pay.
- Conditioning candidacy on a fixed monetary payment, without a reasonable alternative for indigent candidates (such as petition-based access), violates equal protection and impermissibly burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment interests.

## Conclusion

California could not constitutionally use a substantial filing fee as the only gateway to the ballot when it provided no reasonable alternative for indigent candidates to demonstrate support and qualify for placement on the ballot.


Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974)