Morales v. Rust

228 N.E.3d 1025

Diego MORALES, in his official capacity as Indiana Secretary of State, the Indiana Election Commission, and Amanda Lowery, in her official capacity as Jackson County Republican Chair, Appellants,

v.John RUST, Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No. 23S-PL-371

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Argued: February 12, 2024

Filed March 6, 2024

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D12-2309-PL-36487, The Honorable Patrick J. Dietrick, Judge

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS, DIEGO MORALES AND INDIANA ELECTION COMMISSION: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Chief Counsel of Appeals, Benjamin M.L. Jones, Section Chief, Civil Appeals, Kyle Hunter, Assistant Section Chief, Civil Appeals, Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT, AMANDA LOWERY: E. Ryan Shouse, Lewis and Wilkins LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, JOHN RUST: Michelle C. Harter, Lekse Harter, LLC, Greenwood, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE, THE INDIANA REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, INC.: Jackie M. Bennett, Jr., Vivek R. Hadley, Hayley A. Sears, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE, COMMON CAUSE INDIANA AND LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF INDIANA: William R. Groth, Daniel Bowman, Bowman & Vlink, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana

Massa, Justice.

John Rust seeks the Republican nomination for United States Senator from Indiana in 2024. Concerned he would be denied access to the May primary ballot for failure to comply with state law, he sought preemptive relief in the Marion Superior Court. The law in question, commonly called "the Affiliation Statute," contains objective criteria for determining eligibility to appear on the primary ballot of a major political party¹ and discretion for a party to allow the candidacy regardless of compliance. A judge blocked enforcement of the law, finding it unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, triggering direct appeal to this Court. Focusing primarily on the weighing of First Amendment "rights of association" of both Appellants and Appellee, we first stayed the trial court’s ruling on February 15, 2024,² and reversed it entirely on February 27, 2024, remanding with an order to enter judgment for Appellants on all claims.³ Today, we explain why.

Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Constitution of the State of Indiana mentions political parties, but the Founders were keenly aware "that splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism may do significant damage to the fabric of government." Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 736, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974) (citing Federalist, No. 10 (Madison)). The United States Supreme Court fifty years ago accordingly found "the State’s interest in the stability of its political system" to be "compelling," id. at 736, 94 S.Ct. 1274, and later recognized that "[a] political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform," N. Y. State Bd. of Elections v. López Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202, 128 S.Ct. 791, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008) (citing Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisc, ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 122, 101 S.Ct. 1010, 67 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981)). The political party seeking the law’s enforcement and the State Appellants defending its legitimacy thus wield the First Amendment as a "shield," Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 203, 128 S.Ct. 791, to deny Rust entry to the ballot.

Appellee Rust, conversely, claims First Amendment associational rights of his own, to wield as a "sword," id., to force his way on the ballot. And in that clash today, the shield checks the sword, as we find the minor requirements of the Affiliation Statute reflect an elegant balancing of First Amendment interests and are thus constitutionally sound.

Facts and Procedural History

A. Indiana’s Affiliation Statute

The Framers of the United States Constitution "conceived of a Federal Government directly responsible to the people, possessed of direct power over the people, and chosen directly, not by the States, but by the people." U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 821, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995) (citation omitted). This ideal, which was "extant from the beginning of the Republic," id., was constitutionalized in Article I, Section 2, which authorized Members of the House of Representatives to be "chosen every second Year by the People of the several states," U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1. By direct contrast, Article I, Section 3, provided that the "Senate of the United States shall be … chosen by the [state] Legislature[s]." Id. § 3.

In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment adjusted that arrangement by amending Article I, Section 3 to allow voters to directly vote for senators. U.S. Const. amend XVII. Because of its ratification, states established their own primary systems. López Torres, 552 U.S. at 206, 128 S.Ct. 791. Indiana enacted the Primary Election Law in 1915, giving Hoosiers the chance to hold primaries for state and federal candidates, including United States senators. Charles Kettleborough, The Di- rect Primary in Indiana, 10 Nat’l Mun. Rev. 166 (1921); Kelso v. Cook, 184 Ind. 173, 110 N.E. 987, 989 (1916).

After a series of modifications, the General Assembly eventually expanded its election laws to provide Hoosiers broad access to become a party-affiliated candidate in a primary election. Before appearing on the party primary ballot; that would-be candidate must satisfy Indiana Code section 3-8-2-7 ("the Affiliation Statute"). The Affiliation Statute requires a would-be candidate to file a declaration of candidacy, Ind. Code § 3-8-2-7, between January 10 and 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 9, 2024, see id. § 3-8-2-4 (a declaration must be filed not later than noon 88 days and not earlier than 118 days before the primary election).

Additionally, a would-be party-affiliated candidate must establish their party affiliation by one of two ways: (A) having voted for the party with which they claim affiliation in the two most recent primary elections in which they voted ("Option A"); or (B) filing a certification from their county party chair affirming their membership in the party ("Option B"). Id. § 3-8-2-7(a)(4).

A previous iteration of the Affiliation Statute, by contrast, allowed a candidate seeking certification under (a)(4)(A) to qualify so long as he voted for the party with which he claimed affiliation in the last primary election in which he voted. Id. § 3-8-2-7(a)(4)(A) (2021). The original version of the statute, effective from 1986 through June 30, 2013, allowed a candidate to establish party affiliation in three ways: (A) voting in the most recent primary held by the party in which the candidate claimed affiliation; (B) the candidate claimed a party affiliation despite never having voted in a primary election; or (C) filing certification from their county party chair affirming their membership in the party. Id. § 3-8-2-7(4), as amended by Pub. L. No. 194-2013, § 12 (eff. July 1, 2013).

B. Procedural History

John Rust of Seymour seeks to be a candidate on the May 7, 2024, Republican Party primary ballot for United States Senate. Rust last voted in the Republican primary in 2016. He did not vote in the 2014, 2018, 2020, or 2022 primaries and voted as a Democrat in the 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 primaries. Because he last voted in the 2016 Republican primary, Rust could not qualify under Option A of the Affiliation Statute and had to seek party certification under Option B.

In July 2023, Rust met with Jackson County Republican Party Chair Amanda Lowery requesting certification to fulfill Option B. Lowery told Rust she would not certify his party membership because of his voting record. Despite not satisfying either option of the Affiliation Statute, Rust announced his candidacy.

Rust then filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief naming Lowery, the Election Commission, and Secretary of State Morales as Defendants (collectively, "the State"). He also sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Affiliation Statute, arguing it violated the federal and state constitutions. The State moved to dismiss the complaint under Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and moved to consolidate the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion with a trial on the merits.

The trial court consolidated the motions and after a hearing found the Affiliation Statute unconstitutional. The trial court explained that if the State "imperils a sacred and cherished right of [its] citizens," then it must act "for an articulated compelling and pressing reason, and it[s action] must be exercised in the most transparent and least restrictive and least intrusive ways possible." Appellants’ App. Vol. 2, p. 10. The trial court concluded that the 2021 amendment to Indiana Code section 3-8-2-7(a)(4) "fails in this regard." Id. Specifical- ly, the trial court found that the Affiliation Statute: (1) violated Rust’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (2) raised vagueness and overbreadth concerns; (3) violated the Seventeenth Amendment by improperly taking away rights from voters and giving them to the state legislature and party chairs; (4) violated Rust’s Article 1, Section 23 right to equal privileges and immunities; (5) improperly amended the Indiana Constitution without going through the proper process; and (6) violated the canons of statutory interpretation,

Because the trial court’s final judgment declared the Affiliation Statute unconstitutional, we have mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction. Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(b). And since this appeal was filed, this Court has received amicus briefs from the Indiana Republican State Committee, and Common Cause Indiana and League of Woman Voters of Indiana.⁴

Standard of Review

[1, 2] We review statutory and constitutional questions de novo. City of Hammond v....