Libertarian Party of New York, et al. v. New York State Board of Elections, et al.

In 2020, New York passed massive, historic increases to its thresholds for independent minor political parties to gain and retain access to the ballot. The practical effect of these increases was the elimination of contemporary independent minor parties such as Petitioners and the predictable result that virtually no independent minor party will be able to attain or retain ballot access. In upholding the increases, the courts below purported to apply the standard first developed in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992): a court must “weigh the character and magnitude of the burden the State’s rule imposes on those rights against the interests the State contends justify that burden, and consider the extent to which the State’s concerns make the burden necessary. Regulations imposing severe burdens on plaintiffs’ rights must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling state interest. Lesser burdens, however, trigger less exacting review, and a State’s important regulatory interests will usually be enough to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997) (cleaned up). In the minor party context, the Court has stated that “the State may not act to maintain the ‘status quo’ by making it virtually impossible for any but the two major parties to achieve ballot positions for their candidates.” Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 965 (1982) (plurality op.). The courts below upheld the increased thresholds. The questions presented are: 1. Did the courts below properly apply the Ander-