MBE Rules · Constitutional Law
Ballot Access and Election Rules
Anderson/Burdick
The rule
Election regulations are weighed on a sliding scale: severe burdens on voting or association get strict scrutiny, while reasonable, nondiscriminatory rules need only important regulatory interests.
In plain English
Election regulations are evaluated based on how much they impact the right to vote or associate politically. If a law imposes a severe burden on these rights, it will be subjected to strict scrutiny, meaning the government must show a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored. In contrast, if the law is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, it only needs to serve an important regulatory interest.
Worked example
A state law requires candidates to collect 10,000 signatures to appear on the ballot, which is significantly higher than the national average. A candidate challenges this law, arguing it severely burdens their ability to run for office. The court applies strict scrutiny and finds the state cannot justify such a high requirement, ruling in favor of the candidate.
Memory hook
Severe burdens face strict scrutiny; reasonable rules just need important interests.
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students misidentify the burden level of a regulation, leading them to apply the wrong standard of review. It's crucial to accurately assess whether the law imposes a severe burden or is merely reasonable.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve a hypothetical election law and ask whether it imposes a severe burden or is reasonable, testing the student's ability to apply the correct standard of scrutiny.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.