No. 23A139

Siddhanth Sharma v. Damon Circosta, Chair, North Carolina State Board of Elections, et al.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-08-16
Status: Denied
Type: A
Tags: ballot-access elections-clause felon-disqualification first-amendment fourteenth-amendment political-party-affiliation
Latest Conference: 2023-10-06
Question Presented (from Petition)

1.) Does Appellee's (NC Board of Elections) extra requirements of 3 additional requisites of 1.) Being a Registered Voter 2.) Being part of a Political Party for 90 days and 3.) Not being a Felon violate Appellant Sharma's (Applicant) 1st, 14th Amendment Rights, Article I Section 2 Clause 2, Article I Section 4 Clause 1, Article I Section 5 Clause 1, Article VI Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution to seek Ballot Access for the 2022 Midterms for U.S. House of Representatives in District 13 of North Carolina to serve in (now currently the remainder of) the 118th Congress, provided he got elected?

2.) Whether the District Court erred in refusing to hold a Special Election for Appellant for U.S. House of Representatives in District 13 of North Carolina for the 2022 Midterms for Appellant to serve in the remainder of the 118th Congress, provided he got elected, by Denying Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration and Preliminary Injunction?

3.) Can a Special Election Still be granted?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether state ballot access requirements—including voter registration, political party affiliation for a specified period, and felon disqualification—violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Elections Clause when applied to prevent a candidate from appearing on the ballot for federal office

Docket Entries

2023-10-10
Application (23A139) denied by the Court.
2023-09-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2023.
2023-09-13
Application (23A139) referred to the Court.
2023-09-06
Application (23A139) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
2023-08-18
Application (23A139) denied by The Chief Justice.
2023-08-08
Application (23A139) for injunctive relief, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Siddhanth Sharma
Siddhanth Sharma — Petitioner