Editing Ballot access (section)

===Constitutional dimensions of ballot access laws===
The Constitution has limited the states' discretion to determine their own ballot access laws:
* the right to [[equal protection]] of the laws under the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] (when the restrictions involve a discriminatory classification of voters, candidates, or political parties);
* rights of political association under the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] (especially when the restrictions burden the rights of political parties and other political associations, but also when they infringe on the rights of a candidate or a voter not to associate with a political party);
* rights of free expression under the First Amendment;
* rights of voters (which the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has said are "inextricably intertwined" with the rights of candidates);
* property interests and liberty interests in candidacy;
* other rights to "[[due process of law]]"
* the [[right to petition the government]] (this argument is sometimes raised to allege that signature-gathering requirements, or the rules implementing them, are unfairly restrictive);
* [[freedom of the press]] (which historically included the right to print ballots containing the name of the candidate of one's choosing);
* the right to a "[[republican form of government]]," which is guaranteed to each state (although this clause has been held not to be enforceable in court by individual citizens).

The US Supreme Court precedent on ballot access laws cases has been conflicting.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cofsky|first=Kevin|date=1996-12-01|title=Pruning the Political Thicket: The Case for Strict Scrutiny of State Ballot Access Restrictions|url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol145/iss2/3|journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review|volume=145|issue=2|pages=353–421|doi=10.2307/3312660|jstor=3312660|url-access=subscription}}</ref> In ''[[Williams v. Rhodes]]'' (1969) the court struck down Ohio's ballot access laws on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.  During the 1970s the Supreme Court upheld strict ballot access laws, with a 'compelling State interest' being the "preservation of the integrity of the electoral process and regulating the number of candidates on the ballot to avoid voter confusion."<ref>"Constitutional Right To Candidacy."  Nicole A. Gordon  ''Political Science Quarterly'' Volume 91, Number 3, 1976</ref>

The Supreme Court did strike down provisions in a ballot access law in ''[[Anderson v. Celebrezze]]'', 460 U.S. 780 (1983), but most of the subsequent court rulings in the 1980s–2000s continued to uphold ballot access laws in both primary and general elections. Among the most notable of these cases from the 1970s–1990s:
* ''[[Bullock v. Carter]],'' 405 U.S. 134 (1972)
* ''[[Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party]],'' 440 U.S. 173 (1979)
* ''[[U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton]],'' 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
* ''[[Lubin v. Panish]],'' 415 U.S. 709 (1974)
* ''[[Norman v. Reed]],'' 502 U.S. 279 (1992).

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

Requiring an otherwise eligible candidate or political party to obtain signatures greater than 5% of the eligible voters in the previous election may be unconstitutional. This is based on ''Jenness v. Fortson,'' 403 U.S. 431 (1971); the court upheld a restrictive ballot access law with this 5% signature requirement, whereas the ''[[Williams v. Rhodes]]'' (1969) had involved a 15% signature requirement.<ref>[http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/431/case.html "Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S. 431 (1971)", ''US Supreme Court Center''. Retrieved 22 September 2008.]</ref> Most State ballot access requirements, even the more restrictive ones, are less than 5%, and the Supreme Court has generally refused to hear ballot access cases that involved an Independent or minor party candidate challenging a ballot access law that requires less than 5%.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/060107.html#1 "Oklahoma Supreme Court Won't Hear Ballot Case – Libertarian Ballot Access Case Had Been Filed in 2004"], ''Ballot Access News'', 1 June 2007. Retrieved 22 September 2008</ref>