Let this be said for Justice Byron White: He's consistent. In Supreme Court cases involving access to the ballot, he voted wrong in 1968, wrong in 1974 and wrong again in 1983. Last week he voted wrong yet one more time.

White won the trophy in a case dating from Hawaii's 1986 elections for its state House of Representatives. A voter named Alan B. Burdick found that in his legislative district, only a single candidate would be on the official ballot for the general election.When he inquired about writing in a vote for someone else that November, Burdick found that write-in voting is unlawful in Hawaii. He could vote for the lone official candidate, or he could stay home. If he and his friends attempted to write in a vote for someone else, their votes would not be counted.

Burdick filed a federal suit, contending that such a prohibition denies him his First Amendment right of political association. The District Court agreed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed. Last week Burdick lost out. Speaking through Justice White, the Supreme Court told Burdick, in effect, that he might as well stay home. Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to permit write-in voting.

A state's regulation of its own elections, said White, inevitably will impose some burdens upon candidates and voters. If regulations are reasonable, neutral and not based upon a candidate's views, they will be upheld. White ruled that Hawaii's ban imposes no more than a "light" burden on Burdick.

View Comments

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justices Harry Blackmun and Sandra Day O'Connor, dissented. They had by far the best of the argument. Kennedy termed the burden "significant." Hawaii is almost a one-party state. Democrats outnumber Republicans 6-to-1. On average, only one independent candidate a year gets on a general election ballot. Burdick and others are deprived of the right of exercising their own choice. The deprivation is "total."

Over the years, the high court has considered dozens of cases involving state regulation of elections. Many of these have turned on access to the ballot.

Until the Hawaii case came along last week, the court's decisions were based upon questions of degree. Here there was no question of degree. Hawaii's ban against write-in voting is total.

During oral argument on March 24, Burdick's counsel made an irreverent point. In a free election, a voter ought to be able to cast a protest vote even for Donald Duck. You bet! When one considers some of the candidates who get elected to legislative office, Donald Duck looks pretty good.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.