Burdick v. Takushi

Background

A Hawaii registered voter sued after only one candidate filed for his state legislative seat in 1986 and the State’s election law made no provision for write-in votes. A federal trial court first ordered write-in voting, but state and federal courts disagreed about whether Hawaii law barred write-ins; the Hawaii Supreme Court held the law did bar write-ins, and the case returned to the federal courts for a constitutional review.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied a balancing test from prior cases: weigh how much the law burdens voters against the State’s specific interests in regulating elections. The Court found Hawaii’s overall ballot-access system—open primaries, party petition routes, nominating papers, and a nonpartisan primary option—gave reasonable ways for candidates to reach the ballot before deadlines. Because the write-in ban imposed only a limited burden, the State’s interests (avoiding factionalism, preventing party raiding, enforcing nomination rules, and keeping orderly elections) justified the prohibition, and the Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling upholding the ban.

Real world impact

Hawaii voters and independent or third-party hopefuls are most affected: they cannot cast or have counted late or protest write-in votes and must use the State’s filing and primary routes instead. The decision confirms that States may choose not to provide write-in options, though a State remains free to allow them if it wishes.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy (joined by two Justices) dissented, arguing the ban imposes a significant burden. The dissent emphasized many uncontested races, high rates of blank ballots, early filing deadlines, and barriers that discourage nonparty participation, and would have required the State to justify the write-in ban more rigorously.