The petition of the day is:


Issues: (1) Whether the equal protection analysis in ballot-access cases, including Anderson v. Celebrezze and Burdick v. Takushi, incorporates a non-discrimination principle, separate and apart from the Anderson-Burdick burden analysis, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 10th and 11th Circuits, or whether the Anderson-Burdick burden analysis is the sole test for ballot access, as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit here; (2) whether a minor party must show its “exclusion or virtual exclusion” from the ballot to demonstrate a “severe burden” under Anderson-Burdick before strict scrutiny analysis is triggered, or whether a demonstration of significant roadblocks that extend beyond the merely inconvenient, as suggested by Justice Scalia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, are sufficient to trigger a “severe burden” and strict scrutiny analysis; and (3) whether the “flexible analysis” framework of Anderson-Burdick allows a ballot-access scheme that significantly impairs minor parties, when less burdensome alternatives exist but are not employed, as held by the 6th Circuit, or whether, under a “flexible analysis” requires the least burdensome alternative that meets legitimate state interests, as held by the 2nd and 11th Circuits.

Posted in Libertarian Party of Kentucky v. Grimes, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Kate Howard, Petition of the day, SCOTUSblog (May. 3, 2017, 11:23 PM),