Kenneth R. Mancuso v. James L. Taft, Mayor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 9 district · 19 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The right to run for public office touches on two fundamental freedoms: freedom of individual expression and freedom of association. Freedom of expression guarantees to the individual the opportunity to write a letter to the local newspaper, speak out in a public park, distribute handbills advocating radical reform, or picket an official building to seek redress of grievances. All of these activities .are protected by the First Amendment if done in a manner consistent with a narrowly defined concept of public order and safety. . . . The choice of means will likely depend on the amount of time and energy the individual wishes to expend and on his perception as to the most effective method of projecting his message to the public. But interest and commitment are evolving phenomena. What is an effective means for protest at one point in time may not seem so effective at a later date. The dilettante who participates in a picket line may decide to devote additional time and resources to his expressive activity. As his commitment increases, the means of effective expression changes, but the expressive quality remains constant. He may decide to lead the picket line, or to publish the newspaper. At one point in time he may decide that the most effective way to give expression to his views and to get the attention of an appropriate audience is to become a candidate for public office —means generally considered among the most appropriate for those desiring to effect change in our govern”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Cushing

2. “In Williams v. Rhodes [ 393 U.S. 23 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968)], supra, the Court held that First Amendment rights were “fundamental” for purposes of equal protection As noted above, the Supreme Court in Bullock [v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 , 92 S.Ct. 849 , 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972)] stated that only candidate restrictions with substantial impact on voters would receive the strict review appropriate for legislation which'affects the right to vote. We need not decide whether a similar threshold determination is required with regard to an individual’s right to run for office, since we find that the provision here at issue imposes a severe hurdle to appellee’s candidacy and hence to his exercise of his First Amendment rights. As noted above, it does not merely present the would-be candidate with minor requirements before being entitled to a place on the ballot; it forces the public employee to make an all-or-nothing choice between his job and his candidacy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Johnson v. Cushing

3. “The fact of candidacy alone may open previously closed doors of the media. The candidate may be invited to discuss his views on radio talk shows; he may be able to secure equal time on television to elaborate his campaign program; the newspapers may cover his candidacy; he may be invited to debate before various groups that had theretofore never heard of him or his views. In short, the fact of candidacy opens up a variety of communicative possibilities that are not available to even the most diligent of pieketers or the most loyal of party followers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Cook v. Popplewell