Balsam v. Guadagno
|
|
 |
| Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration. |
Balsam v. Guadagno is a case that was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on April 8, 2015.
Case background
A group of New Jersey voters and nonprofit organizations, collectively referred to as "Balsam" after the name of Plaintiff Mark Balsam, alleged that New Jersey state election law violated their voting rights. The plaintiffs sued New Jersey Secretary of State Kim Guadagno in her official capacity in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Judge Stanley Chesler penned the court's opinion:[1]
| “ | Plaintiffs allege this statutory regime, and specifically N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:23-45, constitutionally "disenfranchises" them and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, including their associational and non-associational rights and their rights under the Equal Protection clause. According to Plaintiffs, the fundamental right to vote extends to primary elections, and New Jersey violates this right by conditioning primary participation on voter affiliation 'with a political party approved by the State . . . .' Consequently, by denying New Jersey's 2.6 million registered unaffiliated voters 'the right to cast a vote in primary elections, the State has disenfranchised nearly half of its electorate . . . .' The Complaint also asserts a trio of state law claims, two of which — for violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-2(c) and the right to vote secured by Article II, Section I of the New Jersey Constitution — mimic Plaintiffs' federal claims. The third state law claim alleges that because primary elections are 'conducted at the expense of the state,' N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:45-1, those elections unconstitutionally appropriate public funds for a private purpose in violation of Article VIII, Section III of the New Jersey Constitution.[2] | ” |
Guadagno petitioned the court to dismiss the voters’ complaints, asserting that New Jersey’s closed primary system was constitutional, the plaintiffs lacked standing, and under New Jersey’s sovereign immunity. District of New Jersey Judge Chesler dismissed the case on August 14, 2014. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.[1]
Primary election policy in New Jersey
- See also: Primary elections in New Jersey
Primary elections allow voters to determine which candidates compete in the general election and can be nonpartisan or partisan. In partisan primaries, voters choose the candidates they prefer for a political party to nominate in the general election.
The laws governing primary elections vary from state to state and can even vary within states by locality and political party. For example, only registered party members are allowed to vote in closed primaries, while registered party members and unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote in semi-closed primaries, and all voters are allowed to vote in open primaries.
Primary elections also vary by the way their outcomes are determined. Majority systems require the winning candidate to receive at least fifty percent of the votes cast, while plurality systems do not. In top-two primaries, top-four primaries, and blanket primaries, all candidates are listed on the same ballot, regardless of partisan affiliation.
Outcome
On April 8, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed the District of New Jersey's decision, holding that the state’s interests in protecting election integrity were legitimate. Judge Kent Jordan wrote the opinion for the court’s three-judge panel:[3]
| “ | As acknowledged by the Appellants at oral argument, their main argument boils down to the following syllogism: (1) all voters in New Jersey, regardless of party affiliation, have a constitutional right to participate at each stage of the electoral process that materially impacts the outcome of non-presidential elections in the state; (2) New Jersey's closed primary elections materially impact the outcome of non-presidential elections in the state; therefore, (3) all voters in New Jersey, regardless of party affiliation, have a constitutional right to participate in New Jersey's closed primary elections - i.e., the primaries may not be closed. But it appears that the Appellants are aware that controlling precedents preclude us from ordering New Jersey to force political parties to open their primary elections to non-party members. Therefore, the Appellants argue instead that, in order to protect their fundamental right to meaningfully participate at all stages of an election, we force New Jersey to abolish the closed primary election scheme altogether.
The Appellants' attempt to tie their state law claims into their federal claims is unpersuasive. Even assuming that they are correct that violation of the federal Constitution could be used to establish a violation of the state law on which they rely, it is state law that provides the cause of action, if any, and the attendant relief they seek. Therefore, Ex Parte Young's exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply. In short, because Congress has not abrogated and New Jersey has not waived its sovereign immunity, the Appellants cannot invoke federal jurisdiction over their state law challenge to New Jersey's closed primary election system.[3] While 'a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction,' no court has ever held that that right guarantees participation in primary elections. The Appellants nevertheless rely on United States v. Classic as authority for their argument that voters have a constitutional right to participate in primary elections. Their reliance is misplaced. ... In answering the question presented to it, the Court in Classic presupposed that the right it expressed only applied to voters who were 'qualified' to cast votes in Louisiana's Democratic primary. But Classic did not expound on who was 'qualified,' and instead left that distinction up to Louisiana law. Fairly read, Classic speaks to the constitutional protections that inure to qualified primary voters, but it is completely silent as to who is qualified. It is, therefore, of no help to the Appellants' argument.[2] |
” |
Balsam et al. appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). On October 4, 2015, SCOTUS declined to take up the case, allowing the appeals court decision to stand.[4]
See also
- Electoral systems in New Jersey
- Primary elections in New Jersey
- Sovereign immunity
- United States v. Classic (1941)
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- Balsam v. Sec'y of State (2015)
- Balsam v. Guadagno (2014)
- United States v. Classic (1941)
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, ’’Balsam v. Guadagno’’, decided August 14, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, ‘’Balsam v. Guadagno’’, decided April 8, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "OCTOBER TERM 2015 Journal," accessed March 27, 2025
