Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
7. As a matter of constitutional law, which of the following is the proper burden of persuasion in this suit?
A woman sought her party's nomination for governor in the May primary election. After losing in the primary, the woman filed nominating petitions containing the requisite number of signatures to become a candidate for the office of governor in the following general election. The chief elections officer of the state refused to certify the woman's petitions solely because of the above statute. The woman then filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of this state statute.
A state has a statute providing that an unsuccessful candidate in a primary election for a party's nomination for elected public office may not become a candidate for the same office at the following general election by nominating petition or by write-in votes.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
In «demonstrated support» cases, where a state requires a candidate to win the primary before running in the general election, a balancing test applies. In Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997), the Court stated the process of weighing «the character and magnitude of the burden the state's ruling imposes» upon First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and then determining whether the interest justifies a severe burden. This is done by looking at whether the restriction is narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest.
When the burdens are less severe, however, the scrutiny will also be less severe. In other words, this is a case-by-case analysis. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (finding a demonstrated support restriction constitutional when a reasonable alternative means exists for a candidate to access the ballot without heavily burdening the right to associate or vote). If the restriction is reasonable and non-discriminatory, it generally will be upheld on the basis of the state's important regulatory interests. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).
C is correct. Restrictions on the ability of persons to be candidates must be examined to see if they violate either the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Here, First Amendment rights are violated by the action. The statute infringes on the right of political association by completely barring an individual from associating themselves with a party after losing that party's primary, in the general election. This severe burden thus triggers strict scrutiny, and the statute will be struck down unless the government proves that the statute is necessary to achieve a compelling interest.
A is incorrect. The burden is on the state, not the woman, to prove that the statute serves a compelling interest given the severity of the burden on the right of association.
B is incorrect. This is the wrong level of scrutiny to review a government action that involves a fundamental right. Rational basis is the lowest standard of review and only applies when the government action does not involve any fundamental rights, suspect classifications, or quasi-suspect classifications. In this question, a fundamental right is involved with the government action, so rational basis review would be inappropriate.
D is incorrect. As explained above, rational basis review is inappropriate to review a government action that involves fundamental rights. This answer choice also misstates who bears the burden in rational basis review. Under rational basis, the challenger must prove that the action is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, not the government.