Demonstrated Burden Required: Darnell v. Hargett on Tennessee's Minor Party Ballot Access

Introduction

In Christopher Darnell et al. v. Tre Hargett et al., the Libertarian Party of Tennessee and four individual members challenged several Tennessee ballot-access statutes as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The core dispute centered on the State’s requirement that an unrecognized minor political party obtain signatures from 2.5% of the previous gubernatorial electorate—and file that petition at least 90 days before the general election—if it wishes its candidates to appear on the ballot under the party name rather than as “independents.” The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, underscoring that an as-applied ballot access challenge must allege a specific, concrete burden and not rest on generalized facial objections already rejected in prior precedent.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit panel—Judges Clay, Thapar, and Readler—held:

The Libertarian Party’s complaint did not plausibly allege that Tennessee’s 2.5% signature requirement and 90-day filing deadline impose a constitutional burden on the Party itself.
The complaint primarily reiterated a facial challenge—arguing that the statutes are overly burdensome in the abstract—despite this precise argument having been rejected in Green Party of Tennessee v. Hargett (700 F.3d 816 (6th Cir. 2012)).
Conclusions and “naked assertions” of inability to marshal resources were insufficient under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal to survive a motion to dismiss.
The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, reiterating that an as-applied challenge requires well‐pleaded factual allegations of concrete harm.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983): Established the balancing framework for evaluating election regulations.
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992): Clarified that courts weigh burdens on voting rights against state interests under Anderson’s framework.
Green Party of Tennessee v. Hargett, 700 F.3d 816 (6th Cir. 2012): Held that Tennessee’s 2.5% petition signature requirement is not facially unconstitutional; affirmed on remand that no as-applied violation was shown.
Paige v. Coyner, 614 F.3d 273, 277 (6th Cir. 2010): Reviewed standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007): Articulated the requirement that complaints must plead enough factual matter to state a plausible claim.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a two-step analysis:

Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard
All well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions or bare assertions are not. Here, the Libertarian Party’s allegations were largely conclusory—claiming only that it “failed” to comply and “cannot marshal” resources—without specific facts showing the signature drive or deadline imposed a unique burden on its organization or members.
Anderson-Burdick balancing
Under this test, courts first identify the magnitude of the burden a state election law imposes. If the burden is severe, strict scrutiny applies; if it is minor, a less exacting review suffices. Because the complaint failed to allege any burden beyond general inconvenience applicable to all minor parties, the court held there was no threshold showing that Tennessee’s laws substantially burdened the Party’s associational or voting rights.

Impact

Darnell v. Hargett reinforces key principles in election-law jurisprudence:

As-applied challenges require concrete, well-pleaded allegations of how a particular plaintiff is uniquely burdened by a statute.
Generalized facial objections—particularly those already addressed by higher courts—will not carry the day without new factual showings.
Minor parties must develop a factual record demonstrating actual hardships (e.g., demonstrable resource constraints, uniquely impacted membership bases) if they wish to challenge ballot-access thresholds.
The decision may deter future plaintiffs from filing boilerplate complaints against established ballot-access laws, streamlining litigation in the Sixth Circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Statewide Political Party: One whose candidate in the most recent governor’s race received at least 5% of the vote.
Recognized Minor Political Party: A party that files a petition with signatures from at least 2.5% of last gubernatorial voters—currently 43,497 signatures—90 days before the general election.
Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge: A facial challenge argues that a law is invalid in all its applications; an as-applied challenge contends the law is unconstitutional under specific circumstances or for specific plaintiffs.
Anderson-Burdick Framework: A sliding-scale test balancing election regulation burdens against the state’s interests. Severe burdens trigger strict scrutiny; modest burdens invite more deferential review.
Rule 12(b)(6) Pleading Standard: A complaint must include enough factual detail to make relief plausible, not merely conceivable or asserted in conclusory form.

Conclusion

Darnell v. Hargett affirms that minor‐party challengers must allege and later prove specific, non-conclusory facts showing how ballot-access requirements uniquely burden their rights. Simply reiterating previously rejected facial arguments or claiming a generic inability to meet statutory thresholds will not survive a motion to dismiss. This decision thus underscores the necessity of a well-developed factual record in as-applied ballot-access litigation and reaffirms the robustness of Tennessee’s minor-party signature and deadline requirements under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.