Anderson v Celebrezze was based on John Anderson’s independent presidential campaign in 1980. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that Ohio’s March 20, 1980 deadline violated the 1st Amendment political association rights and the 14th Amendment equal protection rights of Anderson and potential supporters.

In particular, the Supreme Court decided: (1) that Ohio’s early deadline would lessen the effectiveness of votes by Anderson’s supporters in other States; (2) that it precluded candidacies that had been triggered by events of the campaign (Anderson did not announce his independent candidacy until April 24, 1980); and (3) it placed an unequal burden on independent candidates relative to major party candidates, since the major party conventions were 5 months away, and even Ohio’s presidential preference primary was 3 months in the future.

Item 1 would not apply to a gubernatorial campaign in one State. Item 3 would not apply since the filing deadline for independent candidates in West Virginia is contemporaneous with the primaries that determine the major party candidates. In fact, West Virginia could argue that their system was intended to preclude sore-loser candidacies.

Item 2 may not apply to West Virginia’s presidential deadline. If we compare the 1980 dates in Ohio, with the 2008 dates in West Virginia, we have:

March 20 vs. August 1 filing deadline; April 24 vs. September 5 announcement of independent candidacy; and May 16 vs. September 27 filing of putative petitions. Anderson could have well argued that Ohio’s law was unreasonable given that in neighboring West Virginia the filing date was 4-1/2 months later. Given the 2008 primary schedule, Anderson might not have been successful in his challenge of Ohio’s law.

In 1980, a district court had ordered that Anderson’s name be placed on the ballot. The Supreme Court did not rule until April 1983. They could look at the election results and decide that Andeson who received 6% of the vote in Ohio, should have been on the ballot of Ohio.

Judges and lawyers like this part of Anderson v. Celebrezze the best: “Constitutional challenges to specific provisions of a State’s election laws therefore cannot be resolved by any ‘litmus paper test’ that will separate valid from invalid restrictions. Instead, a court must resolve such a challenge by an analytical process that parallels its work in ordinary litigation.”