A candidate for mayor sues to strike down a five-year residency requirement and to be placed on a primary ballot; The defendant is the party chair but not election officials; The issue is ripe. The correct conclusion is:

A candidate for mayor sues to strike down a five-year residency requirement and to be placed on a primary ballot; The defendant is the party chair but not election officials; The issue is ripe. The correct conclusion is:

• A. There is no case or controversy because the candidate lacks standing.
• B. The qualifications of an elected official present a substantial federal question.
• C. The court may reach the merits because the residency requirement denies equal protection.
• D. Federal courts may modify the state law by finding substantial compliance.

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is standing in federal court. For a case to go forward, the plaintiff must show a concrete, personal injury that the court can redress. Here, the plaintiff is challenging a state residency rule and seeks to be placed on a primary ballot, but the defendant is a party chair—an actor who is not a government election official. Even though the dispute is ripe, the plaintiff’s alleged injury isn’t personally redressable by a court against this private defendant. A private party cannot compel the state to place someone on a ballot, and striking down the residency requirement would be a general rule affecting everyone, not an order that specifically grants the plaintiff a ballot spot. Because there’s no redressable, personal injury against the defendant, the case fails to meet standing requirements, so there is no case or controversy for the federal court to resolve. As a result, the other options fail because they presume the court can address merits or modify state law under this private-party challenge, which standing blocks.

The key idea here is standing in federal court. For a case to go forward, the plaintiff must show a concrete, personal injury that the court can redress. Here, the plaintiff is challenging a state residency rule and seeks to be placed on a primary ballot, but the defendant is a party chair—an actor who is not a government election official. Even though the dispute is ripe, the plaintiff’s alleged injury isn’t personally redressable by a court against this private defendant. A private party cannot compel the state to place someone on a ballot, and striking down the residency requirement would be a general rule affecting everyone, not an order that specifically grants the plaintiff a ballot spot. Because there’s no redressable, personal injury against the defendant, the case fails to meet standing requirements, so there is no case or controversy for the federal court to resolve.

As a result, the other options fail because they presume the court can address merits or modify state law under this private-party challenge, which standing blocks.