Filed Date: Sept. 19, 2016
Closed Date: May 16, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case considered the constitutionality of West Virginia's January filing deadline for independent candidates and minor party candidates seeking to add their names to the general election ballot in November.
Two candidates from independent political parties filed this lawsuit on September 19, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia alleging that they were improperly excluded from West Virginia's general election ballot for the November 2016 election. The plaintiffs were the Socialist Equality Party’s nominee for the West Virginia House of Delegates in District 16 and the Constitution Party’s nominee for President of the United States. They were represented by two private law firms. The defendant was the West Virginia Secretary of State. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant retroactively applied a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to remove their names from the ballot, after they had taken the required steps to have their names added to the ballot. The candidates sought declaratory and injunctive relief to have their names restored to the November 2016 ballot, along with nominal damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Robert C. Chambers.
West Virginia law creates a two-tiered ballot access scheme for candidates seeking to run in the general election for partisan offices. Candidates for recognized parties (including the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Mountain Party, and the Libertarian Party) may nominate their candidates for the general election ballot by convention or primary election. All other candidates (referred to as independent or "no party" candidates) must file a nominating petition (called a "nomination certificate"), a notice of candidacy (called a "certificate of announcement"), and pay a filing fee. For the November 2016 general election, the deadline for independent candidates to file the required documents and pay the filing fee was August 1, 2016. The defendant posted this information on the Secretary of State's website. Plaintiffs complied with this deadline. The defendant notified plaintiffs on or about August 25, 2016 that they qualified for the general election ballot and their names were added to the ballot. Then, on September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeals issued its decision in Wells v. State ex rel. Miller, 791 S.E.2d 361 (W.Va. 2016), a challenge to the candidacy of an candidate who sought to qualify for the general election ballot for local office. The trial court held that Wells did not qualify under the provisions for independent candidates because he was a member of a recognized party. The Supreme Court of Appeals agreed but added another reason why Wells' name could not be added to the ballot: he had not filed his certificate of announcement by January 30, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 3-5-7(c). Prior to the 2015 amendments to West Virginia Code § 3-5-7, the January deadline applied only to candidates participating in the primary election. However, in 2015, West Virginia Code § 3-5-7 was amended to apply to candidates in both the primary and general elections. The defendant decided that the Wells decision should apply immediately and retroactively, even for independent candidates, such as plaintiffs, who had complied with the August 1, 2016 deadline. On September 16, 2016, the Secretary of State's office notified plaintiffs and 15 other independent candidates that their names had been removed from the November general election ballot. Three days later, plaintiffs filed their lawsuit. According to plaintiffs, the ballots had already been printed with the plaintiffs' names; apparently, the defendant intended to obscure plaintiffs' names with stickers on the ballots that would be sent out on September 23, 2016. Plaintiffs asserted two claims: 1) the West Virginia ballot access scheme for independent candidates, as applied to plaintiffs, violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) The Secretary's retroactive application of Wells violated the plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 20, 1016, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order.
On September 21, 2016, another independent candidate who was running for the office of the County Commissioner of Putnam County sought to intervene in the case on the plaintiffs' side. The Court granted the Motion to Intervene on September 21, 2016, and also added the Clerk of the County Commission of Putnam County as a defendant. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of West Virginia Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs.
On September 22, 2016, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, which the Court converted to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court granted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and enjoined the defendants from removing plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor, and all similarly situated candidates from the general election ballots. The Court further directed the defendant to immediately notify the County Clerks that plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor, and all similarly situated candidates should not be removed from the general election ballots.
On October 21, 2016, in an opinion published at 216 F.Supp.3d 699 (S.D. W.Va. 2016), the Court granted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court held that strict scrutiny applied to West Virginia's early filing deadline, noting that West Virginia's January deadline was even more severe than the deadlines that were struck down in Ohio and South Caroline. West Virginia's deadline for independent candidates was 284 days before the general election and 102 days before the primary election. The Court found the character and magnitude of the burden to be significant as it discriminated against independent candidates and voters "whose political preferences lie outside the existing political parties." 216 F.Supp.3d at 706 (quoting Anderson,460 U.S. at 794). The January filing deadline deprived the independent candidates from knowing the political climate of the major parties and what issues will come to the forefront during campaigns. It also seriously impaired the abilities to raise support, money, and recognition for their campaigns. The Court found West Virginia's justifications for the early deadline to be inadequate, holding "[i]t is simply not credible to suggest that voters need 284 days to become educated about independent and unrecognized candidates." 216 F.Supp.3d at 707. Accordingly, the Court found that the filing requirements were unconstitutional.
On January 13, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to submit objections by January 20, 2017 if they objected to the entry of a permanent injunction against the early filing deadline. No party objected so on January 24, 2017, the Court entered a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, along with their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with them, from enforcing the filing deadline set out in West Virginia Code § 3- 5-7(c) (2015) against independent and minor-party candidates whose nomination is governed by West Virginia Code § 3-5-23(a)(2015); and further directing the Secretary to notify all County Clerks of this injunction within 14 days after entry of this Order. The Court also found that plaintiffs were prevailing parties that were entitled to reasonable attorneys' under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
On May 16, 2017, the Court awarded plaintiffs attorneys fees of $33,143, and costs of $1,091.81 for a total award of $34,234.81. There was no further activity in the case after May 16, 2017.
Summary Authors
Denise Gunter (11/24/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4538354/parties/daly-v-warner/
Chambers, Robert Charles (West Virginia)
Baiz, Sylvia A. (West Virginia)
Erbland, Peter C (West Virginia)
Leslie, J. Robert (West Virginia)
Crofts, Jamie Lynn (West Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4538354/daly-v-warner/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2025, 9:57 p.m.
State / Territory: West Virginia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 19, 2016
Closing Date: May 16, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two prospective candidates for state and federal offices who were denied access to the general election ballot in West Virginia in 2016.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Putnam County, West Virginia (Putnam), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $34,234.81
Order Duration: 2017 - None
Issues
Voting: