In the case of Brown, Secretary of State of California v. Chote (1972), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether or not an individual could run for office in two different states simultaneously. The appellant, Edmund G. Brown Jr., was serving as Secretary of State for California when he challenged Robert W. Chote's eligibility to appear on the state's ballot for both President and Vice-President under two separate parties - American Independent Party and Peace & Freedom Party respectively. The court ruled that it is unconstitutional to prevent a person from running for multiple offices at once if they are otherwise eligible according to each state’s laws. It held that there were no compelling reasons why this should be disallowed; any potential conflicts would only arise if the candidate actually won both elections, which was highly unlikely. This decision upheld an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel in U.S District Court which had found against Brown’s argument that allowing dual candidacies might confuse voters or dilute votes among other candidates.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. Chote, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding state jurisdiction over Native American tribes and their members. He contended that California did not have authority to impose its tax laws on an Indian reservation because it violated tribal sovereignty as recognized by federal law and treaties with Native American nations. According to Douglas, this principle of tribal sovereignty had been upheld in previous Supreme Court decisions which limited states' power over reservations unless explicitly granted by Congress. The justice also pointed out inconsistencies between the majority's reasoning in this case compared to other cases involving state taxation of Indians or reservations, suggesting they were selectively applying principles based on desired outcomes rather than consistent legal standards.