From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dillon v. Fiorina

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Mar 24, 1972
340 F. Supp. 729 (D.N.M. 1972)

Summary

holding unconstitutional a state law requiring candidates for the United States Senate to have resided in the state for at least two years

Summary of this case from Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller

Opinion

Civ. No. 9340.

March 24, 1972.

Keleher McLeod (Dennis M. McCary), Albuquerque, N.M., for Malcolm Dillon.

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin Robb (William S. Dixon), Albuquerque, N.M., for Clarence Gailard and Howard B. Durham.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Oliver E. Payne, Deputy Atty. Gen., Prentis Reid Griffith, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, N.M., for defendant.

Before SETH, Circuit Judge, and MECHEM and BRATTON, District Judges.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


The federal constitutionality of certain portions of the New Mexico election code are in issue in this action. Except for plaintiff Durham, a qualified voter desiring to vote for another plaintiff herein, all the plaintiffs are persons interested in filing in the next primary election for the nomination for United States Senator.

Plaintiffs Dillon and Cole challenge the constitutionality of N.M.Stat.Ann. § 3-8-17, subd. B (1953), which prevents any person from becoming a candidate for nomination by a political party unless he has been affiliated with that party for at least one year prior to the filing date for the primary election. All plaintiffs dispute the constitutionality of N.M.Stat.Ann. § 3-8-26, subd. A, which sets the amount of the filing fee to be paid by certain candidates for the primary election.

The parties have agreed that all plaintiff-candidates are otherwise qualified to file for the primary election for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senator but for their failure to meet the requirements of the challenged statutes. The defendant Secretary of State acknowledges that for such failures the plaintiff-candidates will not be permitted to file. The constitutionality of the applicable statutes is thus squarely presented to the three-judge panel convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2281.

The questioned portion of the filing fee statute reads:

N.M.S.A. § 3-8-26 (1953 Comp.). Primary Election Law — Filing Fees. — The filing fee for each of the following offices is:
A. All officers receiving salary ______ 6% of the first year's salary

As applied to the office of United States Senator, the filing fee is $2,550.00. This requirement prevents persons otherwise qualified but unable to pay such a fee from becoming candidates for that office and denies voters the opportunity to vote for such persons. In practical effect the fee here involved is indistinguishable from the filing fees struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972) for violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. See also Chote v. Brown, U.S.D.C.N.D.Cal., filed March 9, 1972. Because the filing fee attacked here restricts the exercise of the franchise through a classification based on wealth, the state is required by Bullock to show that the filing fee is "reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of legitimate state objectives." At the hearing in this cause, the state offered no evidence of any kind, and there is none in the record from which a legitimate state objective can be found. Accordingly, § 3-8-26, subd. A is unconstitutional as it applies to the office of United States Senator. Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining the enforcement of this provision.

The challenged portion of the party membership statute reads:

N.M.S.A. § 3-8-17 (1953 Comp.). Primary Primary Election Law Who may become. candidate. — * * * *
B. No person shall become a candidate for nomination by a political party unless his record of registration shows his affiliation with that political party for a period of at least one (1) year next preceding the filing date for the primary election.

Because the statute requires that party affiliation be shown on the record of registration, another statute and a section of the New Mexico Constitution become germane:

N.M.S.A. § 3-4-2 (1953 Comp.). Qualification for Registration. — Any person who will be a qualified elector at the date of the next ensuing election shall be permitted within the provisions of the Election Code to register and become a voter.

Article VII, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution provides in part:

Every citizen of the United States, who is over the age of twenty-one years, and has resided in New Mexico twelve months, in the county ninety days, and in the precinct in which he offers to vote thirty days, next preceding the election . . . shall be qualified to vote at all elections for public officers. * * * * * *

Evidence adduced at the hearing in this matter showed that, as applied by New Mexico officials, these two provisions in effect prevent one from registering to vote until he has resided in the state for one year. This combined with the one year party membership requirement of § 3-8-17 results in a requirement of at least two years residency before one can file to become a primary candidate for United States Senator.

Where the state has by law made the primary an integral part of the election process, state restrictions imposed on the rights of voters and candidates in primary elections are judged by the same constitutional standards applied to general elections. Bullock v. Carter, supra; Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941).

Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

That a state cannot add to or take away from these qualifications is well settled. Stack v. Adams, 315 F. Supp. 1295 (N.D.Fla. 1970); Exon v. Tiemann, 279 F. Supp. 609 (D.Neb. 1968); State ex rel. Chavez v. Evans, 79 N.M. 578, 446 P.2d 445 (1968). The New Mexico scheme adds an impermissible requirement of at least two years residency to the qualifications for United States Senator and is therefore void. Accordingly, plaintiffs Dillon and Cole are entitled to an injunction restraining the enforcement of § 3-8-17.

SETH, Circuit Judge, concurs in this opinion and has consented to its filing in his absence.


Summaries of

Dillon v. Fiorina

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Mar 24, 1972
340 F. Supp. 729 (D.N.M. 1972)

holding unconstitutional a state law requiring candidates for the United States Senate to have resided in the state for at least two years

Summary of this case from Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller

striking down requirement that candidate in a primary for congressional office must have resided in the state for one year and have been a party member for an additional year prior to the election

Summary of this case from United States v. Richmond

In Dillon, the district court struck down a New Mexico statute that prevented any person from becoming a candidate for United States Senator "unless he ha[d] been affiliated with that party for at least one year prior to the filing date for the primary election."

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Davidson

filing fee and one-year party affiliation to run in primary

Summary of this case from Signorelli v. Evans

filing fee and one-year party affiliation to run in primary

Summary of this case from Joyner v. Mofford
Case details for

Dillon v. Fiorina

Case Details

Full title:Malcolm DILLON et al., Plaintiffs, v. Betty FIORINA, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Mar 24, 1972

Citations

340 F. Supp. 729 (D.N.M. 1972)

Citing Cases

Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller

Although Powell did not address states' power to add qualifications for membership in the House of…

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

None of the overwhelming array of briefs submitted by the parties and amici has called to our attention even…