holding state’s refusal to certify candidacy of underage presidential candidate “violates no federal- right of Plaintiffs”
How later courts described this case
- holding state’s refusal to certify candidacy of underage presidential candidate “violates no federal- right of Plaintiffs”
- finding no First Amendment violation for failing to certify a new political party with no full slate of candidates
- rejecting party’s First Amendment challenge to exclusion from ballot of presidential candidate who did not meet constitutional age requirement
- “Amendment XX, Section 3 of the United States Constitution does not foreclose the Defendant!] from precluding from [the] ballot a would-be candidate for President who does not fulfill the eligibility requirements specified in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McMILLEN, District Judge
(concurring and dissenting).
I concur in the result in this case but I respectfully dissent from Conclusion of Law 19a. See my dissent in The Communist Party of Illinois et al. v. Ogilvie et al., D.C., 357 F.Supp. 105 , entered today.