Lubin v. Panish

Background

An indigent man sought the nomination to run for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors but was denied nomination papers because he could not pay the $701.60 filing fee. California law required prepayment of filing fees for many offices and even required fees for write-in candidates, and lower state courts refused his requests for relief before the Supreme Court took the case.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether it is constitutional for a State to force an otherwise qualified but poor candidate off the ballot solely because he cannot pay a fixed filing fee when no reasonable alternative access exists. The majority said the State’s interest in keeping ballots manageable is important, but selecting candidates only by ability to pay is not reasonably necessary. The Court reversed: an indigent candidate cannot be required to pay a filing fee he cannot afford when the State provides no alternative means for getting on the ballot, and the State must allow other reasonable tests of seriousness, such as petition signatures.

Real world impact

The decision protects poor people who want to run for office from being excluded by flat filing fees when no other path exists. States may still limit frivolous candidates, but they must offer nondiscriminatory alternatives like petition requirements. The ruling remands the case for further proceedings consistent with these principles; it is not merely a procedural dismissal but a constitutional check on fee-only systems.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas emphasized that wealth-based discrimination violates equal protection, while Justice Blackmun (joined by Justice Rehnquist) suggested a free write-in option would be an acceptable alternative to fees and urged severing the fee requirement for write-ins.