Citation network
LubIn Vs. Panish
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 26, 1974
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Distinguished
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 709 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Lubin v. PanishSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 709 (1974) Lubin v. PanishSearch
-
their names on the ballot. The Superior Court also rejected the argument that the State was required by Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
This desire to limit the size of the ballot has been variously phrased as a desire to minimize voter confusion, Thomas v. MimsSearch
-
F.Supp. 179, 181 (SD Ala.1970), to limit the number of runoff elections, Spillers v. SlaughterSearch
-
Jenness v. LittleSearch
-
F.Supp. 925, 927 (ND Ga.1969), appeal dismissed sub nom. Matthews v. LittleSearch
-
and to prevent the overwhelming of voting machines -- the modern counterpart of ballot flooding, Wetherington v. AdamsSearch
-
an electoral process for determining who will represent any segment of the State's population. See, e.g., Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Kramer v. UnionSearch
-
San Antonio School District v. PageSearch
-
extent of his political support, and hence the seriousness of his candidacy. Page 415 U. S. 715 In Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
for a place on the ballot signed by a percentage of those who voted in a prior election. See American Party of Texas v. WhiteSearch
-
The point, of course, is that ballot access must be genuinely open to all, subject to reasonable requirements. Jenness v. FortsonSearch
-
filing fees that were so patently exclusionary as to violate traditional equal protection concepts. Cf. Rosario v. RockefellerSearch
-
Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
to show a compelling interest in conditioning the right to run for office on payment of fees cannot stand. Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
began looking closely at discrimination against the poor in the criminal area. In Griffin Page 415 U. S. 720 v. IllinoisSearch
-
Id. at 351 U. S. 19 . In Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
length of confinement could not, under the Equal Protection Clause, be made to turn on one's ability to pay. Williams v. IllinoisSearch
-
Tate v. ShortSearch
-
criminal procedure has not defined the boundaries within which wealth discriminations have been struck down. In Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
to rest the result on equal protection. And it was the Equal Protection Clause the majority relied on in Lindsey v. NormetSearch
-
Indeed, the Court has scrutinized wealth discrimination in a wide variety of areas. In Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
Page 415 U. S. 721 permissible state objective. Closer to the case before us here was Turner v. FoucheSearch
-
require ownership of land as a qualification for membership on a county board of education. See Kramer v. UnionSearch
-
Cipriano v. HoumaSearch
-
U. S. 701 (1969). In Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
violative of equal protection because of the burden it placed on the poor's exercise of the franchise. And in Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
held that the State must show a compelling interest before it can keep political minorities off the ballot. Williams v. RhodesSearch
-
Amendment, as well as included in the penumbra of First Amendment rights. As MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN stated in Storer v. BrownSearch
-
equal protection guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 18603(b) appears to be severable. See Frost v. CorporationSearch
-
ballot as the alternative of obtaining a large number of petition signatures in a relatively short time. See Storer v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lubin v. PanishSearch
-
Thomas v. MimsSearch
-
Spillers v. SlaughterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial