When evidence is adduced that signature collection requirements to secure ballot access for independent presidential candidates exceed what is necessary to protect a state's compelling interest against ballot clutter and voter confusion, can excessive signature requirements outweigh the national interest in presidential elections and evade constitutional review absent a full analysis of each prong of this Court's Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the constitutionality of ballot access restrictions?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has long recognized that States may require an independent presidential candidate to collect a sufficient number of signatures on election petitions to demonstrate that the candidate has a “modicum of support” in the community to secure ballot access to protect a State’s legitimate interest in preventing ballot clutter and the resulting threat of voter confusion. This case presents the following question: When evidence is adduced that signature collection requirements to secure ballot access for independent presidential candidates exceed what is necessary to protect a state’s compelling interest against ballot clutter and voter confusion, can excessive signature requirements outweigh the national interest in presidential elections and evade constitutional review absent a full analysis of each prong of this Court’s Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the constitutionality of ballot access restrictions?