917 F. Supp. 155 - Rockefeller v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate ·

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “there will always be a significant number of districts without any contest, ... and an even greater number of districts with a very limited choice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 82 F. Supp. 2d 57 - Molinari v. Powers · Prestia v. O'Connor

2. “Analysis of the validity of ballot access signature requirements to determine whether they unduly burden the right to vote proceeds in three steps: [A reviewing court] must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength. of each of those interests, it must also consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs rights. Only after weighing all of these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 [, 103 S.Ct. 1564 , 75 L.Ed.2d 547 ]... (1983) (internal citation omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 349 F. Supp. 2d 566 - Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp.

3. “[I]t should be noted that a presidential primary requires a kind of campaign that is very different from an ordinary campaign for local office. In a national presidential campaign, ballot access restrictions that require enormous outlays of money and manpower will lead candidates to concentrate their resources in other states where the return on their investment, measured in terms of potential delegates and national exposure, will be greater per dollar spent. Thus, to prevent candidates from competing in a certain state, the state legislature need not adopt access restrictions that are, in the abstract, insurmountable. Instead, it need only adopt restrictions that are substantially more burdensome than those adopted in other states.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brock v. Sands