End date 1983 | ||
Citations 460 U.S. 780 (more)103 S. Ct. 1564; 75 L. Ed. 2d 547; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 145; 51 U.S.L.W. 4375 Prior history Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Majority Stevens, joined by Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun Dissent Rehnquist, joined by White, Powell, O'Connor Similar Crawford v Marion County El, Reynolds v Sims, Wesberry v Sanders, Smith v Allwright, NAACP v Alabama | ||
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Ohio's filing deadline for independent candidates was unconstitutional.
Contents
Background
John B. Anderson was a declared candidate for the 1980 presidential election. On 16 May 1980, Anderson's supporters filed a nominating petition to the Ohio Secretary of State's office. Then-secretary Anthony J. Celebrezze Jr. rejected the petition, because it was not filed by the state's deadline of seventy-five days prior to the presidential primary. At that time, the primary election was held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in June. In 1980, the deadline would have been 20 March.
The federal district court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional on two grounds. First, the statute violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by placing too high of a burden to petition the government. Second, the deadline was earlier than that required by candidates in the major parties, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This decision was later reversed by the United States Court of Appeals, but the United States Supreme Court overturned that decision.
Majority opinion
The United States Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's ruling and reinstated that of the district court. Among other points, the majority stated:
Dissenting opinion
The dissenting opinion of the court pointed to Ohio's deadline for partisan candidates, which was the same as that of independent candidates:
The dissent additionally stated that states had discretion in allowing or refusing to allow national candidates on their ballots. In light of a sensible system of petitioning, the Supreme Court should not interfere: