The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether states may ban write-in voting in elections.
The court said it will hear a challenge to such a ban in Hawaii, where a voter said his rights were violated because he was denied the chance to support candidates not listed on the ballot.In other action, the court:
- Agreed to decide whether federal judges may second-guess prosecutors who don't seek softer sentences for convicted criminals who cooperated in the prosecution of others.
The justices said they will hear the appeal of a North Carolina man who says he wrongly was denied a decreased prison sentence for his drug-trafficking and gun conviction in 1990.
- Refused to consider giving lawyers greater leeway to criticize judges.
The court, over one dissenting vote, let stand disciplinary actions in New York and Missouri against elected prosecutors who contend their free-speech rights were violated.
In the voting case, Honolulu lawyer Alan Burdick challenged his state's write-in ban, saying it violated his rights of free expression and association.
Burdick said he wanted to write in candidates of his choosing in a 1986 statewide election because none of those listed on the ballot represented his views on significant issues.
State officials told him his ballot would not be counted if he wrote in names not listed on it.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last June that Burdick's rights were not violated.
"Although Burdick is guaranteed an equal voice in the election of those who govern, Burdick does not have an unlimited right to vote for any particular candidate," the appeals court said.
"The prohibition on write-in voting may limit Burdick's political speech, but it does not restrict the alternative channels available to Burdick for expressing his political views," the appeals court said.
The appeals court also said that Hawaii's election laws generally provide easy access to the ballot for minor party candidates. It noted that only 25 signatures from eligible voters are needed to get listed on the primary ballot for state or national office.
But a group of political activists that urged the Supreme Court to hear Burdick's appeal told the justices the appeals court improperly characterized the state's ballot-access provisions.
For example, the group said, it takes a relative handful of signatures to be listed on a primary ballot but an independent candidate seeking to be listed on a general-election ballot needs the support of 10 percent of registered voters who did not vote in the primary.