burdick
takushi
argued
march
decided
june
petitioner
registered
honolulu
voter
filed
suit
respondent
state
officials
claiming
hawaii
prohibition
voting
violated
rights
expression
association
first
fourteenth
amendments
district
ultimately
granted
motion
summary
judgment
injunctive
relief
appeals
reversed
holding
prohibition
taken
part
state
comprehensive
election
scheme
impermissibly
burden
right
vote
held
hawaii
prohibition
voting
unreasonably
infringe
upon
citizens
rights
first
fourteenth
amendments
pp
petitioner
assumes
erroneously
law
imposes
burden
right
vote
must
subject
strict
scrutiny
cases
applied
flexible
standard
considering
state
election
law
challenge
must
weigh
character
magnitude
asserted
injury
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
plaintiff
seeks
vindicate
precise
interests
put
forward
state
justification
burden
imposed
rule
taking
consideration
extent
interests
make
necessary
burden
plaintiff
rights
anderson
celebrezze
standard
regulation
must
narrowly
drawn
advance
state
interest
compelling
importance
subjects
voters
rights
severe
restrictions
norman
reed
imposes
reasonable
nondiscriminatory
restrictions
upon
rights
state
important
regulatory
interests
generally
sufficient
justify
restrictions
anderson
supra
pp
hawaii
vote
prohibition
imposes
limited
burden
upon
voters
rights
associate
politically
vote
candidates
choice
placed
ballot
state
election
laws
provide
easy
access
primary
ballot
date
filing
nominating
petitions
two
months
primary
burden
voters
rights
borne
fail
identify
candidate
choice
shortly
primary
interest
making
late
rather
early
decision
entitled
little
weight
cf
storer
brown
pp
hawaii
asserted
interests
avoiding
possibility
unrestrained
factionalism
general
election
guarding
party
raiding
primaries
legitimate
sufficient
outweigh
limited
burden
voting
ban
imposes
upon
voters
pp
indeed
foregoing
analysis
leads
conclusion
state
ballot
access
laws
pass
constitutional
muster
imposing
reasonable
burdens
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
voting
prohibition
presumptively
valid
since
burden
right
vote
candidate
one
choice
light
normally
counterbalanced
state
interests
supporting
ballot
access
scheme
pp
white
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
souter
thomas
joined
kennedy
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
arthur
eisenberg
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
steven
shapiro
john
powell
mary
blaine
johnston
carl
varady
paul
kahn
lawrence
sager
burt
neuborne
alan
burdick
pro
se
steven
michaels
deputy
attorney
general
hawaii
argued
cause
respondents
brief
warren
price
iii
attorney
general
girard
lau
deputy
attorney
general
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
common
stanley
levin
hawaii
libertarian
party
arlo
hale
smith
socialist
workers
party
edward
copeland
eric
lieberman
brief
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
state
arizona
et
al
frankie
sue
del
papa
attorney
general
nevada
kateri
cavin
deputy
attorney
general
attorneys
general
respective
jurisdictions
follows
grant
woods
arizona
robert
butterworth
florida
richard
ieyoub
louisiana
lacy
thornburg
north
carolina
susan
brimer
loving
oklahoma
mark
barnett
south
dakota
paul
van
dam
utah
joseph
meyer
wyoming
robert
naraja
commonwealth
northern
mariana
islands
james
linger
rfiled
brief
andre
marrou
et
al
amici
curiae
justice
white
delivered
opinion
issue
case
whether
hawaii
prohibition
voting
unreasonably
infringes
upon
citizens
rights
first
fourteenth
amendments
petitioner
contends
constitution
requires
hawaii
provide
casting
tabulation
publication
votes
appeals
ninth
circuit
disagreed
holding
prohibition
taken
part
state
comprehensive
election
scheme
impermissibly
burden
right
vote
affirm
petitioner
registered
voter
city
county
honolulu
one
candidate
filed
nominating
papers
run
seat
representing
petitioner
district
hawaii
house
representatives
petitioner
wrote
state
officials
inquiring
hawaii
voting
policy
received
copy
opinion
letter
issued
hawaii
attorney
general
office
stating
state
election
law
made
provision
voting
app
petitioner
filed
lawsuit
claiming
wished
vote
primary
general
elections
person
filed
nominating
papers
wished
vote
future
elections
persons
whose
names
might
appear
ballot
district
district
hawaii
concluded
ban
voting
violated
petitioner
first
amendment
right
expression
association
entered
preliminary
injunction
ordering
respondents
provide
casting
tallying
votes
november
general
election
app
pet
cert
district
denied
stay
pending
appeal
app
appeals
entered
stay
vacated
judgment
district
reasoning
consideration
federal
constitutional
question
raised
petitioner
premature
neither
plain
language
hawaii
statutes
definitive
judicial
interpretation
statutes
establishes
hawaii
legislature
enacted
ban
voting
burdick
takushi
accordingly
appeals
ordered
district
abstain
see
railroad
texas
pullman
state
courts
determined
whether
hawaii
election
laws
permitted
voting
remand
district
certified
following
three
questions
hawaii
constitution
state
hawaii
require
hawaii
election
officials
permit
casting
votes
require
hawaii
election
officials
count
publish
votes
hawaii
election
laws
require
hawaii
election
officials
permit
casting
votes
require
hawaii
election
officials
count
publish
votes
hawaii
election
laws
permit
require
hawaii
election
officials
allow
voters
cast
votes
count
publish
votes
app
pet
cert
hawaii
high
answered
three
questions
holding
hawaii
election
laws
barred
voting
measures
consistent
state
constitution
burdick
takushi
haw
district
granted
petitioner
renewed
motion
summary
judgment
injunctive
relief
entered
stay
pending
appeal
haw
although
prohibition
voting
places
restrictions
petitioner
rights
expression
association
burden
justified
light
ease
access
hawaii
ballots
alternatives
available
petitioner
expressing
political
beliefs
state
broad
powers
regulate
elections
specific
interests
advanced
state
ii
petitioner
proceeds
erroneous
assumption
law
imposes
burden
upon
right
vote
must
subject
strict
scrutiny
cases
hold
beyond
cavil
voting
fundamental
significance
constitutional
structure
illinois
bd
elections
socialist
workers
party
follow
however
right
vote
manner
right
associate
political
purposes
ballot
absolute
munro
socialist
workers
party
constitution
provides
may
prescribe
times
places
manner
holding
elections
senators
representatives
art
cl
therefore
recognized
retain
power
regulate
elections
sugarman
dougall
tashjian
republican
party
connecticut
common
sense
well
constitutional
law
compels
conclusion
government
must
play
active
role
structuring
elections
practical
matter
must
substantial
regulation
elections
fair
honest
sort
order
rather
chaos
accompany
democratic
processes
storer
brown
election
laws
invariably
impose
burden
upon
individual
voters
provision
code
whether
governs
registration
qualifications
voters
selection
eligibility
candidates
voting
process
inevitably
affects
least
degree
individual
right
vote
right
associate
others
political
ends
anderson
celebrezze
consequently
subject
every
voting
regulation
strict
scrutiny
require
regulation
narrowly
tailored
advance
compelling
state
interest
petitioner
suggests
tie
hands
seeking
assure
elections
operated
equitably
efficiently
see
brief
petitioner
accordingly
mere
fact
state
system
creates
barriers
tending
limit
field
candidates
voters
might
choose
compel
close
scrutiny
bullock
carter
anderson
supra
mcdonald
board
election
chicago
instead
full
agreed
anderson
supra
rehnquist
dissenting
flexible
standard
applies
considering
challenge
state
election
law
must
weigh
character
magnitude
asserted
injury
rights
protected
first
fourteenth
amendments
plaintiff
seeks
vindicate
precise
interests
put
forward
state
justifications
burden
imposed
rule
taking
consideration
extent
interests
make
necessary
burden
plaintiff
rights
tashjian
supra
standard
rigorousness
inquiry
propriety
state
election
law
depends
upon
extent
challenged
regulation
burdens
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
thus
recognized
rights
subjected
severe
restrictions
regulation
must
narrowly
drawn
advance
state
interest
compelling
importance
norman
reed
state
election
law
provision
imposes
reasonable
nondiscriminatory
restrictions
upon
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
voters
state
important
regulatory
interests
generally
sufficient
justify
restrictions
anderson
supra
see
also
apply
standard
considering
petitioner
challenge
hawaii
ban
ballots
doubt
hawaii
election
laws
like
election
regulations
impact
right
vote
anderson
supra
hardly
said
laws
issue
unconstitutionally
limit
access
ballot
party
independent
candidates
unreasonably
interfere
right
voters
associate
candidates
choice
placed
ballot
indeed
petitioner
understandably
challenge
manner
state
regulates
candidate
access
ballot
obtain
position
november
general
election
ballot
candidate
must
participate
hawaii
open
primary
registered
voters
may
choose
party
primary
vote
tashjian
supra
see
state
provides
three
mechanisms
voter
candidate
choice
may
appear
primary
ballot
first
party
petition
may
filed
days
primary
group
persons
obtain
signatures
one
percent
state
registered
voters
supp
days
primary
candidates
must
file
nominating
papers
certifying
among
things
qualify
office
sought
members
party
seek
represent
general
election
nominating
papers
must
contain
signatures
specified
number
registered
voters
candidates
statewide
federal
office
state
legislative
county
races
supp
winner
party
advances
general
election
thus
party
forms
around
candidacy
single
individual
one
else
runs
party
ticket
individual
elected
primary
win
place
november
general
election
ballot
second
method
candidates
may
appear
hawaii
primary
ballot
established
party
route
established
parties
qualified
petition
three
consecutive
elections
received
specified
percentage
vote
preceding
election
may
avoid
filing
party
petitions
years
haw
democratic
republican
libertarian
parties
currently
meet
hawaii
criteria
established
parties
like
new
party
candidates
established
party
contenders
required
file
nominating
papers
days
primary
supp
third
mechanism
candidate
may
appear
ballot
designated
nonpartisan
ballot
nonpartisans
may
placed
nonpartisan
primary
ballot
simply
filing
nominating
papers
containing
signatures
depending
upon
office
sought
days
primary
advance
general
election
nonpartisan
must
receive
percent
primary
vote
number
votes
sufficient
nominate
partisan
candidate
whichever
number
lower
hustace
doi
haw
years
preceding
filing
action
nonpartisans
entered
primary
obtained
slots
november
ballot
brief
respondent
although
hawaii
makes
provision
voting
primary
general
elections
system
outlined
provides
easy
access
ballot
cutoff
date
filing
nominating
petitions
two
months
primary
consequently
burden
voters
freedom
choice
association
borne
fail
identify
candidate
choice
days
primary
storer
brown
gave
little
weight
interest
candidate
supporters
may
making
late
rather
early
decision
seek
independent
ballot
status
cf
rosario
rockefeller
think
reasoning
applies
therefore
conclude
burden
imposed
hawaii
vote
prohibition
limited
one
conclude
otherwise
might
sacrifice
political
stability
system
state
profound
consequences
entire
citizenry
merely
interest
particular
candidates
supporters
instantaneous
access
ballot
storer
supra
characterized
voting
rights
rather
ballot
access
case
petitioner
submits
prohibition
deprives
opportunity
cast
meaningful
ballot
conditions
electoral
participation
upon
waiver
first
amendment
right
remain
free
espousing
positions
support
discriminates
based
content
message
seeks
convey
vote
brief
petitioner
bottom
claims
entitled
cast
hawaii
required
count
protest
vote
donald
duck
tr
oral
arg
impediment
asserted
right
unconstitutional
petitioner
argument
based
two
flawed
premises
first
bullock
carter
minimized
extent
voting
rights
cases
distinguishable
ballot
access
cases
stating
rights
voters
rights
candidates
lend
neat
separation
second
function
election
process
winnow
finally
reject
chosen
candidates
storer
provide
means
giving
vent
political
goals
pique
personal
quarrel
ibid
attributing
elections
generalized
expressive
function
undermine
ability
operate
elections
fairly
efficiently
accordingly
repeatedly
upheld
reasonable
politically
neutral
regulations
effect
channeling
expressive
activity
polls
see
munro
petitioner
offers
persuasive
reason
depart
precedents
reasonable
regulation
elections
require
voters
espouse
positions
support
require
act
timely
fashion
wish
express
views
voting
booth
nothing
flat
ban
forms
ballots
appropriate
standard
evaluating
claim
state
law
burdens
right
vote
set
forth
anderson
applying
standard
conclude
light
adequate
ballot
access
afforded
hawaii
election
code
state
ban
voting
imposes
limited
burden
voters
rights
make
free
choices
associate
politically
vote
turn
next
interests
asserted
hawaii
justify
burden
imposed
prohibition
voting
already
concluded
burden
slight
state
need
establish
compelling
interest
tip
constitutional
scales
direction
state
interests
outweigh
petitioner
limited
interest
waiting
eleventh
hour
choose
preferred
candidate
hawaii
interest
avoid
ing
possibility
unrestrained
factionalism
general
election
munro
supra
provides
adequate
justification
ban
voting
november
primary
election
integral
part
entire
election
process
storer
supra
state
within
rights
reserve
general
election
ballot
major
struggles
forum
continuing
intraparty
feuds
ibid
munro
supra
prohibition
voting
legitimate
means
averting
divisive
candidacies
hawaii
promotes
election
process
winnowing
candidates
see
storer
supra
permitting
unopposed
victors
certain
primaries
designated
officeholders
see
focuses
attention
voters
upon
contested
races
general
election
possible
absent
voting
ban
hawaii
also
asserts
ban
voting
primary
stage
necessary
guard
party
raiding
tashjian
party
raiding
generally
defined
organized
switching
blocs
voters
one
party
another
order
manipulate
outcome
party
primary
election
anderson
petitioner
suggests
hawaii
conducts
open
primary
cognizable
interest
disagree
voters
may
vote
ticket
hawaii
primary
state
requires
party
candidates
member
party
prohibits
candidates
filing
nomination
papers
party
candidate
nonpartisan
candidate
hawaii
system
easily
circumvented
party
primary
election
mounting
campaign
person
filed
time
never
intended
run
election
also
frustrated
general
election
permitting
votes
loser
party
primary
independent
failed
get
sufficient
votes
make
general
election
ballot
state
legitimate
interest
preventing
sorts
maneuvers
voting
ban
reasonable
way
accomplishing
goal
think
legitimate
interests
asserted
state
sufficient
outweigh
limited
burden
voting
ban
imposes
upon
hawaii
voters
iii
indeed
foregoing
leads
us
conclude
state
ballot
access
laws
pass
constitutional
muster
imposing
reasonable
burdens
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
hawaii
election
laws
prohibition
voting
presumptively
valid
since
burden
right
vote
candidate
one
choice
light
normally
counterbalanced
state
interests
supporting
ballot
access
scheme
situations
objection
specific
ban
voting
amounts
nothing
insistence
state
record
count
publish
individual
protests
election
system
choices
presented
ballot
efforts
actively
participate
system
means
available
however
voice
generalized
dissension
electoral
process
discern
adequate
basis
requiring
state
provide
finance
place
ballot
recording
protests
constitutionally
valid
election
laws
right
precious
free
country
voice
election
make
laws
good
citizens
must
live
wesberry
sanders
right
vote
right
participate
electoral
process
necessarily
structured
maintain
integrity
democratic
system
anderson
supra
storer
think
hawaii
prohibition
voting
considered
part
electoral
scheme
provides
constitutionally
sufficient
ballot
access
impose
unconstitutional
burden
upon
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
state
voters
accordingly
judgment
appeals
affirmed
footnotes
ninth
circuit
panel
issued
opinion
march
see
burdick
takushi
june
appeals
denied
petitioner
petition
rehearing
suggestion
rehearing
en
banc
panel
withdrew
original
opinion
issued
version
appears
previously
upheld
party
candidate
petition
signature
requirements
burdensome
burdensome
hawaii
requirement
see
norman
reed
american
party
texas
white
jenness
forson
jenness
rejected
equal
protection
challenge
system
provided
alternative
means
ballot
access
members
established
political
parties
candidates
concluding
system
constitutional
operate
freeze
political
status
quo
anderson
celebrezze
concluded
ohio
early
filing
deadline
presidential
candidates
imposed
unconstitutional
burden
voters
freedom
choice
freedom
association
anderson
distinguishable
ohio
election
scheme
explained
provided
means
candidate
appear
ballot
march
cutoff
date
hawaii
fills
void
nonpartisan
primary
ballot
mechanism
storer
upheld
california
ballot
access
law
refused
recognize
independent
candidates
year
disaffiliated
political
party
dissent
complains
primary
voters
required
opt
specific
partisan
nonpartisan
ballot
foreclosed
voting
races
candidate
appears
chosen
ballot
races
dissatisfied
available
choices
post
generally
true
primaries
voters
required
select
ticket
rather
choose
universe
candidates
running
party
slates
indeed
upheld
much
onerous
requirement
voters
interested
participating
primary
election
enroll
member
political
party
prior
preceding
general
election
rosario
rockefeller
cf
american
party
texas
supra
state
may
determine
essential
integrity
nominating
petition
process
confine
voters
supporting
one
party
candidates
course
nominating
process
dissent
correct
suggesting
requiring
primary
voters
select
specific
ballot
impermissibly
burdened
right
vote
clear
decisions
availability
option
provide
adequate
remedy
anderson
supra
lubin
panish
indeed
voters
well
candidates
participated
ballot
access
cases
anderson
state
also
supports
ban
voting
means
enforcing
nominating
requirements
combating
fraud
fostering
informed
educated
expressions
popular
anderson
although
dissent
purports
agree
standard
apply
determining
whether
right
vote
restricted
post
implies
analyzing
ban
minimal
level
scrutiny
post
dissent
actually
employs
strict
scrutiny
evident
invocation
quite
rigid
narrow
tailoring
requirements
instance
dissent
argues
state
adopt
less
drastic
means
preventing
candidacies
state
screen
ineligible
candidates
disqualification
rather
voting
ban
post
seems
us
limiting
choice
candidates
complied
state
election
law
requirements
prototypical
example
regulation
affects
right
vote
eminently
reasonable
anderson
supra
dissent
suggestion
voters
entitled
cast
ballots
unqualified
candidates
appears
driven
assumption
election
system
imposes
restraint
voter
choice
unconstitutional
simply
wrong
see
supra
course
way
suggest
state
free
provide
voting
many
opinion
read
discourage
provisions
justice
kennedy
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
question
us
whether
hawaii
enact
total
ban
voting
majority
holds
finding
hawaii
ballot
access
rules
impose
serious
limitations
right
vote
indeed
majority
effect
adopts
presumption
prohibitions
voting
permissible
state
ballot
access
laws
meet
constitutional
standards
dissent
disagree
presumption
well
majority
specific
conclusion
hawaii
ban
voting
constitutional
record
demonstrates
significant
burden
hawaii
ban
imposes
right
voters
petitioner
vote
candidates
choice
election
triggered
lawsuit
petitioner
wish
vote
one
candidate
ran
state
representative
district
write
name
candidate
preferred
way
cast
meaningful
vote
petitioner
dilemma
recurring
frequent
phenomenon
hawaii
state
ballot
access
rules
circumstance
one
party
democratic
party
predominant
critical
understand
petitioner
case
isolated
example
restriction
free
choice
candidates
ballot
access
rules
cites
mitigating
injury
fact
compound
democratic
candidates
often
run
unopposed
especially
state
legislative
races
general
election
percent
elections
state
legislative
offices
involved
single
candidate
races
reply
brief
petitioner
comparable
figures
percent
percent
ibid
large
numbers
voters
cast
blank
ballots
uncontested
races
leave
ballots
blank
rather
vote
single
candidate
listed
percent
voters
voted
races
cast
votes
uncontested
state
senate
races
brief
common
amicus
curiae
percent
voters
cast
votes
uncontested
state
house
races
even
contested
races
percent
voters
cast
blank
ballots
given
many
hawaii
voters
dissatisfied
choices
available
hard
avoid
conclusion
least
voters
cast
votes
candidates
given
option
ban
thus
prevents
voters
participating
hawaii
elections
meaningful
manner
evidence
also
belies
majority
suggestion
hawaii
voters
presented
adequate
electoral
choices
hawaii
makes
easy
get
official
ballot
contrary
hawaii
ballot
access
laws
taken
whole
impose
significant
impediment
independent
candidacies
majority
suggests
easy
new
parties
petition
place
primary
ballot
must
obtain
signatures
one
percent
state
registered
voters
ignores
difficulty
presented
early
deadline
gathering
signatures
days
months
primary
election
meeting
deadline
requires
considerable
organization
early
stage
election
condition
difficult
many
small
parties
meet
see
brief
socialist
workers
party
amicus
curie
party
petition
unsuccessful
completed
time
candidate
wish
affiliated
party
may
run
independent
requirements
get
nonpartisan
ballot
onerous
signatures
days
primary
nonpartisan
ballot
presents
voters
difficult
choice
primary
voter
choose
single
ballot
offices
hence
voter
wishes
vote
independent
candidate
one
office
must
forgo
opportunity
vote
established
party
primary
every
race
since
might
independent
candidates
offices
practical
terms
voter
wants
vote
one
independent
candidate
forfeits
right
participate
selection
candidates
offices
rule
ballot
access
rule
finds
curative
fact
presents
substantial
disincentive
voters
select
nonpartisan
ballot
voter
wishes
vote
candidate
one
particular
office
faces
similar
disincentive
select
third
party
ballot
dominance
democratic
party
magnifies
disincentive
primary
election
dispositive
many
races
effect
hawaii
voter
wishes
vote
independent
candidate
must
choose
participating
dispositive
election
many
offices
dilemma
imposes
substantial
burden
voter
choice
explains
also
independent
candidates
secure
enough
primary
votes
advance
general
election
majority
notes
eight
independent
candidates
succeeded
advancing
general
election
past
years
less
one
independent
candidate
per
year
average
fact
run
general
election
hawaii
majority
approval
hawaii
ban
ironic
time
new
democracies
foreign
countries
strive
emerge
era
sham
elections
name
ruling
party
candidate
one
ballot
hawaii
impose
severe
restriction
right
vote
imposes
restriction
haunting
similarity
tendency
exact
severe
penalties
one
anything
vote
dominant
party
ballot
aside
constraints
related
ballot
access
restrictions
ban
limits
voter
choice
another
way
voting
serve
important
safety
mechanism
instances
issue
arises
new
information
disclosed
candidate
late
race
situations
voters
may
become
disenchanted
available
candidates
late
candidates
come
forward
qualify
ballot
prohibition
voting
imposes
significant
burden
voters
forcing
either
vote
candidate
longer
support
cast
blank
ballot
voting
provides
way
quandary
allowing
voters
switch
support
candidates
official
ballot
even
mechanisms
address
problem
election
developments
unsuitable
candidates
win
election
recalled
allowing
voting
way
preserve
voters
right
cast
meaningful
vote
general
election
background
turn
legal
principles
control
case
outset
agree
first
premise
majority
legal
analysis
right
stake
right
cast
meaningful
vote
candidate
one
choice
petitioner
right
freedom
expression
implicated
argument
first
amendment
confers
upon
citizens
right
cast
protest
vote
government
officials
count
report
vote
persuasive
majority
points
purpose
casting
counting
recording
votes
elect
public
officials
serve
general
forum
political
expression
agree
well
careful
statement
gives
test
applied
case
determine
right
vote
constricted
phrases
must
weigh
character
magnitude
asserted
injury
rights
protected
first
fourteenth
amendments
plaintiff
seeks
vindicate
precise
interests
put
forward
state
justifications
burden
imposed
rule
taking
consideration
extent
interests
make
necessary
burden
plaintiff
rights
ante
quoting
tashjian
republican
party
connecticut
submit
conclusion
must
ban
deprives
voters
substantial
voice
selecting
candidates
entire
range
offices
issue
particular
election
starting
point
useful
remember
late
ballots
cast
country
ballots
system
ballots
also
known
australian
ballot
system
introduced
country
see
fredman
australian
ballot
story
american
reform
ix
prior
voters
prepared
ballots
used
preprinted
tickets
offered
political
parties
since
restrictions
whose
name
appear
ballot
individuals
always
vote
candidates
choice
ballots
considered
progressive
reform
reduce
fraudulent
election
practices
ballots
offered
political
parties
often
distinctive
colors
party
determine
whether
one
sold
vote
used
right
ballot
fredman
supra
disadvantage
new
ballot
system
operate
constrict
voter
choice
recognition
problem
several
early
state
courts
recognized
right
cast
votes
see
sanner
patton
construction
contended
appellee
prohibiting
voting
correct
one
voter
deprived
constitutional
right
suffrage
deprived
right
exercising
choice
right
taken
away
nothing
left
worthy
name
right
suffrage
boasted
free
ballot
becomes
delusion
patterson
hanley
cal
every
form
ballot
experience
voter
allowed
seems
agreed
must
allowed
privilege
casting
vote
person
office
writing
name
proper
place
oughton
black
unless
provision
enable
voter
satisfied
vote
ticket
ballot
names
appearing
make
entire
ticket
choice
election
equal
able
express
individual
way
courts
recognized
voters
vote
candidate
choice
without
option
effect
ban
conjunction
restrictions
deprive
voter
opportunity
cast
meaningful
ballot
consequence
prohibitions
impose
significant
burden
voting
rights
see
reynolds
sims
right
vote
freely
candidate
one
choice
essence
democratic
society
restrictions
right
strike
heart
representative
government
affected
bans
infringement
right
vote
candidate
choice
total
fact
candidates
longshots
often
makes
difference
right
vote
one
preferred
candidate
exists
regardless
likelihood
candidate
successful
socialist
labor
party
rhodes
ohio
ballot
permits
voter
effectively
exercise
individual
constitutionally
protected
franchise
use
ballots
dependent
candidate
chance
success
aff
part
modified
part
sub
nom
williams
rhodes
based
foregoing
reasoning
accept
majority
presumption
bans
permissible
state
ballot
access
laws
otherwise
constitutional
presumption
circular
fails
take
account
must
consider
availability
voting
lack
thereof
factor
determining
whether
state
ballot
access
laws
considered
whole
constitutional
jenness
fortson
storer
brown
effect
presumption
moreover
excuse
state
justify
defend
ban
majority
view
ban
constitutional
implications
state
ballot
access
scheme
defective
voting
remedy
defect
means
state
needs
defend
ballot
access
laws
restriction
majority
analysis
ignores
inevitable
significant
burden
ban
imposes
upon
individual
voters
preventing
exercising
right
vote
meaningful
manner
liberality
state
ballot
access
laws
one
determinant
extent
burden
imposed
ban
though
automatic
excuse
forbidding
voting
view
state
bans
voting
elections
must
justify
burden
individual
voters
putting
forth
precise
interests
served
ban
prohibition
presumed
valid
absence
proffered
justification
state
standard
derives
anderson
celebrezze
means
least
hawaii
ban
considered
conjunction
state
ballot
access
laws
imposes
significant
burden
voters
petitioner
must
put
forward
state
interests
justify
burden
assess
think
necessary
specify
level
scrutiny
applied
view
state
failed
justify
ban
level
scrutiny
interests
proffered
state
puzzling
advanced
significant
degree
prohibition
consider
interests
turn
interest
best
potential
acceptance
view
preserving
integrity
party
primaries
preventing
candidacies
general
election
majority
points
acknowledged
state
interest
avoiding
party
factionalism
ban
serve
interest
degree
eliminating
one
mechanism
used
candidates
agree
interest
provides
adequate
justification
ban
ante
initial
matter
interest
best
justify
prohibition
general
elections
justify
hawaii
complete
ban
primary
general
election
respect
general
elections
ban
overinclusive
means
addressing
problem
bars
legitimate
candidacies
well
undesirable
candidacies
state
desires
prevent
candidacies
implement
narrow
provision
aimed
particular
problem
second
interest
advanced
state
enforcing
policy
permitting
unopposed
victors
certain
primaries
designated
officeholders
without
go
general
election
majority
possible
absent
voting
ban
ante
makes
sense
petitioner
counsel
acknowledged
oral
argument
degree
hawaii
abolished
general
elections
circumstances
occasion
cast
ballot
tr
oral
arg
anything
argument
cuts
way
provision
makes
important
allow
voting
primary
elections
primaries
often
dispositive
hawaii
justifies
ban
primary
elections
way
prevent
party
raiding
petitioner
argues
alleged
interest
suspect
state
created
party
raiding
problem
first
place
allowing
open
primaries
agree
ironic
state
raise
concern
risk
party
raiding
feature
open
primary
system
state
chosen
majority
suggests
voting
presents
particular
risk
circumventing
primary
system
state
law
requires
candidates
party
primaries
members
party
majority
argument
persuasive
voters
mount
campaign
candidate
meet
requirements
candidate
disqualified
election
state
also
cites
interest
promoting
informed
selection
candidates
interest
claims
advanced
flushing
candidates
open
reasonable
time
election
brief
respondents
think
state
backwards
fact
candidates
often
conduct
visible
campaigns
seems
make
likely
voters
go
trouble
seeking
candidates
writing
names
well
informed
state
interest
may
well
cut
way
state
cites
interests
combating
fraud
enforcing
nomination
requirements
state
explain
voting
presents
risk
fraud
today
polling
places
state
interest
making
sure
ineligible
candidates
elected
petitioner
counsel
pointed
argument
approximately
require
candidates
file
declaration
candidacy
verify
eligible
hold
office
days
election
tr
oral
arg
sum
state
proffered
justifications
prohibition
sufficient
standard
justify
significant
impairment
constitutional
rights
voters
petitioner
grant
relief