Hall v. Simcox’s Empirical Analysis
766 F.2d 1171 · 1985
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Rainbow Coalition of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma State Election Board (1988), Cromer v. South Carolina (1990)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
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 Williams v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Celebrezze · Storer v. Brown · Wallace v. Jaffree · Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Court has not settled on the standard to be applied in ruling on such challenges. Some cases suggest a strict standard: the state must use "the least drastic means” of restricting access to the ballot in pursuit of legitimate state interests — must avoid "overbroad restrictions.” Id [Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 ] at 185-86, 99 S.Ct. [983] at 990-91 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) ]; see also Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 31 , 89 S.Ct. 5, 10 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). Other cases suggest a looser standard: "the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable nondiscriminatory restrictions.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 , 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1569-70 , 75 L.Ed. 547 (1983). See also, id. at 788, n. 9, 103 S.Ct. at 1570 n. 9, and cases cited there. The uncertainty about the standard for judging such restrictions has been noted by the Fifth Circuit in Dart v. Brown, 717 F.2d 1491, 1501-02 (5th Cir.1983), and by several commentators. See, e.g., Tribe, American Constitutional Law 783 (1978); Case Comment, 18 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 2430 (1984). Hall at 1173.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Of course in one sense the more populous the state, the easier it is to get signatures — there is a larger pool to fish from. On this theory only the percentage should matter, a proposition for which McLain , which invalidated a requirement of only 15,000 signatures, offers some support. But this overlooks a number of things: it costs money to circulate petitions; the more signatures that are required, the higher the cost is; and minor parties usually are strapped for funds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“courts may sometimes talk the language of least drastic means but they only strike down ballot-access regulations that are unreasonable”
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.