Jenness v. Fortson
Headline: Court upheld Georgia’s rule requiring independent or small-party candidates to gather nominating petitions signed by 5% of eligible voters before their names appear on general-election ballots, making printed ballot access harder for those candidates.
Holding: The Court upheld Georgia’s 5% nominating-petition requirement for nonparty candidates, finding it does not unconstitutionally infringe candidates’ speech or association rights and does not deny equal protection in the State’s election system.
- Maintains Georgia’s 5% signature rule for ballot listing.
- Keeps write-in votes available as a practical alternative.
- Requires independents to gather substantial signatures before printed ballot access.
Summary
Background
A group of prospective candidates and registered voters, including nominees of a small political organization, sued to block two Georgia rules: a filing fee equal to 5% of the office’s salary and a requirement that nonparty or small-party candidates collect nominating petitions signed by 5% of eligible voters to get their names printed on the general-election ballot. The District Court enjoined the filing-fee rule but refused to enjoin the 5% petition rule, and the State appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether the petition rule unlawfully limited speech, association, or equal treatment compared with party nominees. The opinion distinguished an earlier case that struck down Ohio’s restrictive scheme by noting important differences: Georgia allows write-in votes, recognizes independent candidates, sets no crushing early deadline, and does not force small groups to run elaborate primaries. The Court found Georgia’s system permits free circulation of petitions, allows many voters to sign multiple petitions, and shows real examples of candidates who used petitions successfully. Balancing those facts, the Court concluded the 5% rule did not violate the First Amendment freedoms or the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
Real world impact
The ruling leaves intact Georgia’s method for getting names printed on the ballot: independent and small-party hopefuls must gather substantial signatures or rely on write-in campaigns. The decision affirms a state interest in avoiding ballot confusion and allows Georgia’s fixed 5% threshold to stand. This outcome is not a ruling on every ballot-access law but upholds these specific Georgia procedures.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices (Black and Harlan) expressly agreed with the result, concurring in the Court’s judgment without writing a separate full opinion.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?