On December 16, the 11th circuit heard arguments in Grizzle v Kemp, 10-12176, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2009 Georgia law that says no one may run for a local school board if they have an immediate family member who is a school principal, assistant principal, or on administrative staff, in a school in that district.  The U.S. District Court had declared the law unconstitutional on April 21, 2010.

The two plaintiffs were both denied the ability to run for re-election, in 2009, after the new law took effect.  See this story.

In 1982, in Clements v Fashing, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is no fundamental right to be a candidate for federal office.  However, there was no majority opinion.  Instead, there was one decision signed by four justices, and a contrary opinion also signed by four different justices, and one justice who wrote separately.  This has prevented the Clements case from having much influence.

The issue of qualifications to hold any particular office is distinct from the ballot access issue.  When a law provides that a certain type of person is not eligible to hold the office, the person can’t even claim the office if he or she wins by write-in votes.  By contrast, ballot access concerns whether someone who is eligible to hold the office is able to gain a place on the ballot.