McCarthy v. Briscoe
Headline: Orders Texas to put independent Eugene McCarthy on the 1976 presidential ballot, blocking a state law that barred independent presidential candidates and restoring ballot access despite timing concerns.
Holding: A Circuit Justice ordered Texas to place Eugene McCarthy on the 1976 presidential ballot, finding the state's ban on independent presidential ballot access unconstitutional and granting injunctive relief despite timing concerns.
- Adds McCarthy to the 1976 Texas presidential ballot immediately.
- Blocks a law that left independents no way to show voter support.
- Affirms courts can add a candidate when the State provides no access.
Summary
Background
Senator Eugene J. McCarthy and four Texas voters asked a court to put McCarthy’s name on the 1976 Texas presidential ballot as an independent. Texas had amended its election law effective September 1, 1975 to bar independent presidential candidates from qualifying by petition, leaving only party nomination or write-in votes. The District Court found the law unconstitutional but refused relief because the challenge came late; the Court of Appeals agreed. The applicants then asked a Justice of the Supreme Court for emergency injunctive relief.
Reasoning
The Justice considered whether Texas could effectively shut out independent presidential candidates by giving them no practical way to show community support. Citing earlier cases, he concluded that forcing a candidate to join a party or rely on write-in votes is not an adequate substitute. The lower courts had assumed a petition-signature remedy was the only option, but the Legislature had removed that option for President. The Justice found evidence that McCarthy had substantial national support, that he had qualified in many States, and that Texas offered no proof his support was weaker in Texas. He therefore ordered the Secretary of State to place McCarthy’s name on the November ballot.
Real world impact
The order provided immediate ballot access to McCarthy in Texas for the 1976 election and prevented the State from excluding independent presidential candidates when it offers no way to demonstrate voter support. The Justice noted there appeared to be enough time before absentee and certification deadlines to add his name.
Dissents or concurrances
Four Justices asked to be recorded as holding a different view, a point the Justice included to aid public understanding.
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?