Bullock v. Carter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that expensive filing fees keeping candidates from appearing on ballot harmed voters by preventing them from voting for the candidate of their choice
• holding that primary ballot access restrictions possessing a \patently exclusionary character\ must be \closely scrutinized\
• holding that Texas’s filing fees were unreasonably high and did not constitute a legitimate eligibility requirement
• holding that the imposition of filing fees in order to seek the nomination of a party constituted a constitutional violation
• holding that primary ballot access restrictions possessing a “patently exclusionary character” must be “closely scrutinized”
• recognizing that “a State has a legitimate interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).