This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Burdick v. Takushi: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary" to "|source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=June 8, 1992 | |date=June 8, 1992 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Liberties | |subject=Constitutional Liberties | ||
|facts=Voting is a fundamental right in the United States. | |facts=Voting is a fundamental right in the United States. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
| Burdick v. Takushi | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 8, 1992 |
Facts
Voting is a fundamental right in the United States.
In the early 1990s, write-in candidates couldn't be placed on ballots in the state of Hawaii. All political candidates had to win a primary election in order to secure a spot on the ballot for the general election.
Burdick sought to cast a protest vote for the fictional cartoon character Donald Duck.Procedural History
Burdick (plaintiff), a registered voter in Hawaii, sued Takushi (defendant), Hawaii's Director of Elections.
Arguments
Was Hawaii's prohibition against a protest vote a reasonable burden?
Holding
A state's prohibition against write-in candidates is permissible.
Reasons
There is no right to cast a protest vote for a fictional candidate. SCOTUS asserts that a protest vote interferes with an orderly election process.
Rule
States may restrict the right to vote. For example, felons face disenfranchisement in most states. Non-citizens aren't allowed to vote in U.S. elections.
