Graham v. Tamburri – 8/26/2016

October 28, 2016

Arizona Supreme Court upholds the minimum signature requirement in A.R.S. § 16-322 for candidates wishing to be listed on a party’s primary ballot against free speech challenge.

In 2015, the Legislature amended A.R.S. § 16-322 to require candidates seeking inclusion on a recognized political party’s primary election ballot to submit a nomination petition supported by signatures totaling at least 0.25% of qualified signers in the state (essentially consisting of voters registered to the candidate’s party or registered as independent or no party preferred).  Before the amendments, § 16-322 required candidates to obtain signatures totaling 0.5% of voters registered to the candidate’s party.

After a candidate seeking the 2016 state senate nomination of the Libertarian Party submitted a nomination petition, the chair of another political party filed suit to exclude the candidate from the Libertarian ballot for failing to meet the signature requirements.  The candidate conceded that he did not have enough signatures under the amended version of § 16-322, but argued that the amendment unconstitutionally burdened his First Amendment rights to political speech and association.  The amended statute required the candidate to gather several thousand signatures, compared to only a few hundred under the prior version.

The trial court upheld the 2015 amendments and issued an injunction excluding the candidate from the Libertarian ballot.  The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed.

The Court held that the revised minimum signature requirement did not severely burden the candidate’s First Amendment rights because he failed to show that the signature requirements would prevent a “reasonably diligent” minor party candidate from gaining ballot access.  In doing so, the Court rejected the candidate’s argument that the burden should be gauged by comparing the prior and amended versions of the statute.  Instead, the Court examined the burden of the signatures required (0.25%) against the pool of eligible signers (over 1 million voters) and concluded that this did not severely burden the exercise of political speech.  

Having found no severe burden, the Court applied rational basis review to the amended signature requirements in § 16-322 and concluded that they were rationally related to the state’s valid interest in ensuring that candidates who appear on the general election ballot have a “significant modicum” of voter support.

Chief Justice Bales wrote the unanimous opinion.