Protests 781450-G of Allied Mat & Matting Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• Plaintiffs, however, have not alleged or argued that placement elsewhere on the ballot would prevent voters from locating them.”
• “Ballot access cases should not be pegged into the [strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis] categories. Rather, following Anderson, [the Court’s] scrutiny is a weighing process... .”
• “[A] candidate’s ballot placement can also be regulated [by the state], as placement is surely a less important aspect of voting rights than access [to the ballot].” (citations omitted)
• “[I]t is important for voters to easily identify these candidates and parties on the ballot, which is accomplished by ensuring that candidates for political parties are clearly separated on the ballot from candidates nominated by petition.”
• “Because the Plaintiffs’ burden, if any, is negligible, any reasonable regulatory interest provided by the State will ensure the statutes’ constitutionality under Anderson. ... I am satisfied that [the statutes] do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the First Amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).