In order to get on the ballot, a candidate or party must meet a variety of state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether and how a candidate or party can appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level and apply to state and congressional candidates.
There are three basic methods by which an individual may become a candidate for office in a state.
- An individual can seek the nomination of a state-recognized political party.
- An individual can run as an independent. Independent candidates often must petition in order to have their names printed on the general election ballot.
- An individual can run as a write-in candidate.
For state-specific ballot access requirements, select a state from the map below. If on a mobile device, select a state from the dropdown menu below.
For additional information about ballot access requirements for presidential candidates, see this article.
Ballot access in 2022
The table below lists statewide candidate filing deadlines and primary dates in 2022.
Primary dates and filing deadlines, 2022 |
|---|
The table below lists changes made to election dates and deadlines in the 2022 election cycle.
Court cases
Below is a listing of court cases relevant to ballot access law. These are listed in chronological order.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1968, Williams v. Rhodes held that state laws regulating the selection of presidential electors must meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[1]
Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1972, Bullock v. Carter held that the Texas primary filing fee system, which required the payment of fees as high as $8,900, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court found that, under this system, "many potential office seekers lacking both personal wealth and affluent backers are, in every practical sense, precluded from seeking the nomination of their chosen party, no matter how qualified they might be and no matter how broad or enthusiastic their popular support."[2][3]
Lubin v. Panish, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1974, held that, absent alternative means of ballot access, states cannot require indigent candidates to pay filing fees they cannot afford. To do so violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the rights of expression and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.[4]
Storer v. Brown, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1974, upheld as constitutional a California law forbidding ballot access to independent candidates who had been registered with a qualified political party within one year prior to the immediately preceding primary election. The ruling also established a test to gauge the level of burden imposed by signature requirements: if the number of signatures required is divided by the number of eligible signers and the resulting percentage is greater than five percent, the requirement is likely unconstitutional.[5]
Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1979, the ruling in Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party rendered unconstitutional an Illinois statutory requirement that new political parties and independent candidates for elections in political subdivisions (specifically, Chicago) gather more than the number of signatures required for elections for statewide office.[6]
Anderson v. Celebrezze, a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1983, held that Ohio's early filing deadline for independent presidential candidates violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, placing an unconstitutional burden on the voting and associational rights of supporters of independent presidential candidates.[7][8]
Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1992, Norman v. Reed held that it was unconstitutional for Illinois to require a new political party and its candidates to gather more than 25,000 signatures (the threshold for statewide office) to participate in elections for offices in political subdivisions. The ruling was, in part, a reaffirmation of the court's earlier decision in Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party.[9]
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton was a 1995 case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided against U.S. Term Limits, ruling that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated congressional term limits provisions in 23 states.[10]
See also
Footnotes
Ballotpedia features 339,429 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion.