Anderson v. Celebrezze

PETITIONER: Anderson
RESPONDENT: Celebrezze
LOCATION: Shell Lake, Wisconsin

DOCKET NO.: 81-1635
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

CITATION: 460 US 780 (1983)
ARGUED: Dec 06, 1982
DECIDED: Apr 19, 1983

ADVOCATES:
George T. Frampton, Jr. - on behalf of the Petitioners
Joel S. Taylor - on behalf of the Respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Anderson v. Celebrezze

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 06, 1982 in Anderson v. Celebrezze

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - April 19, 1983 in Anderson v. Celebrezze

Warren E. Burger:

The judgement and opinion of the Court in Anderson against Celebrezze will be announced by Justice Stevens.

John Paul Stevens:

This case involves the constitutionality of Ohio statute that requires an independent candidate for the office of presidency in the United States to file a statement of candidacy as it worked out in 1980 in March of, I think by March 20, 1980, in other words, several months in advance with the November election.

Petitioner, Anderson, announced that he was a candidate, an independent candidate for President on April 24, 1980, which was after the statutory deadline that already passed.

He assembled the necessary signatures and petitioners and sought to file them in May but the secretary of the State of Ohio rejected the filing because it was not timely.

He therefore brought suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the federal statute and the District Judge held the statute unconstitutional and entered an injunction requiring that his name be allowed to appear on the ballot.

The election was held without the injunction having been stayed and after the election, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the District Court decision and reversed and upheld the constitutionality of the statute principally on the ground that performed the function of allowing the voters adequate time to become informed about the qualifications of candidates.

Because two other Circuits had decided these similar questions in a different way involving similar state statutes, we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and we hold that the statute unconstitutionally abridges the associational rights of the voters who seek to support the candidacy of the independent candidate which rights are protected by the First Amendment to the constitution as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Rehnquist has filed a dissenting opinion in which he is joined by Justice White, Justice Powell, and Justice O'Connor.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Justice Stevens.