Facts
- Ohio law required a new political party seeking ballot position for presidential electors to file petitions signed by electors equal to 15% of the vote cast in the last gubernatorial election and to file by early February of the election year.
- The Republican and Democratic Parties could retain ballot access by having received 10% of the vote in the last gubernatorial election, without new petitions.
- Ohio provided no method for independent (non-party) candidates to obtain ballot access for presidential electors.
- The American Independent Party formed in January 1968, gathered more than 450,000 signatures within six months (exceeding the 15% threshold), but was denied printed ballot position for missing the February deadline.
- The Socialist Labor Party, though established, could not realistically meet the 15% petition requirement and could not qualify for printed ballot position.
- Both groups sued Ohio officials in federal court, alleging the statutory scheme denied equal protection by excluding them and burdening voters who wished to support them.
- A three-judge federal district court held the laws unconstitutional but granted only write-in space, not printed ballot position.
- During appeal, an individual Justice ordered printed ballot placement for the American Independent Party, but denied similar late-filed relief to the Socialist Labor Party due to asserted election-administration disruption.
Issues
- Whether a constitutional challenge to state ballot-access rules for presidential electors presents a justiciable controversy rather than a political question.
- Whether Ohio’s combined ballot-access restrictions on new parties, and preferential treatment for major parties, violated the Equal Protection Clause as applied to voting and associational rights.
- What remedy was appropriate given the proximity of the 1968 election and differing timing and feasibility considerations for relief.
Decision
- The Court held the controversy justiciable and rejected the political-question argument.
- The Court held Ohio’s ballot-access system, taken as a whole, was invidiously discriminatory and violated the Equal Protection Clause by giving established parties a decided advantage over new parties.
- The Court reasoned the scheme heavily burdened the rights to associate for political ends and to cast votes effectively, and Ohio failed to show a compelling state interest justifying the burdens.
- For the American Independent Party, the Court modified the judgment to grant full printed ballot access for its presidential electors.
- For the Socialist Labor Party, the Court affirmed the judgment granting only write-in access, citing timing and practical election-administration concerns, despite recognizing the same constitutional defect in the statutory framework.
Legal Principles
- State regulation of presidential elector selection under Article II remains subject to the Equal Protection Clause.
- Election laws that heavily burden political association and effective voting trigger demanding review; the state must demonstrate a compelling justification for discriminatory burdens.
- A ballot-access scheme that effectively entrenches a two-party advantage through combined restrictive requirements may constitute invidious discrimination under equal protection.
- Even where a statutory scheme is unconstitutional, equitable and practical considerations related to imminent elections may affect the scope and timing of judicial relief.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated Ohio’s presidential ballot-access regime because its petition threshold, early deadline, and lack of an independent-candidate path operated together to discriminate against new parties and burden voters’ associational and voting rights without a compelling justification, while tailoring remedies to election-timing constraints.