Rockefeller v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis
74 F.3d 1367 · 1995
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Able v. United States (1996), Libertarian Party of Illinois v. Rednour (1997)
7 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Williams v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Celebrezze · Storer v. Brown · Bullock v. Carter
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only justification-appears to be a desire to increase the advantage already enjoyed by the presidential candidate favored by the Party organization. The favored candidate has the benefit of an in-place organization that can gather the required signatures for delegates with relative ease. Differences in the burdens imposed in different districts are unlikely to have any significant practical effect on the ability of delegates pledged to the favored candidate to obtain the requisite number of signatures. In contrast, such differences may have a substantial impact on candidates who are independent of the Party organization. Because of shortages of time and resources, these candidates, engaging in national campaigns, may be forced to fore-go petitioning in many small districts and focus only on districts, or other states, where ballot access is relatively easy. In the congressional districts in New York with the fewest Republicans, the Party’s candidate will be locked in and the voters who-would have voted for other candidates will be locked out.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There does appear to be a correlation between (a) the districts with more than two candidates on the ballot and (b) the number of registered Republicans in those districts; none of the fifteen least Republican districts had more than two candidates on the ballot. But we think that the difference between three slates and two slates is decidedly less significant than the difference between two slates and one slate. The contention that the fundamental right to vote is infringed in single-candidate districts (where there is arguably no choice) is a very different -contention (and a much stronger one) than the contention that the fundamental right to vote is infringed in districts with two candidates on the ballot.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the only three districts in which no candidate qualified for the ballot were heavily Republican....” Id. at 1373 . Contrary to this finding, the official listings indicate that George Bush and Pat Robertson were both on the ballot in two of these districts and that Mr. Bush, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Dole were all on the ballot in the third. 4 . Among the guideposts the Supreme Court has used to determine whether a burden on ballot access is “undue”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.