In Meyers, Secretary of State of Washington v. Thigpen et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that required voters to declare their party affiliation at least 30 days before a primary election violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs argued that this requirement infringed on their rights to freedom of association and equal protection under the law because it prevented them from participating in primary elections if they did not meet the deadline. However, the court ruled against them, stating that while voting is an important right protected by these amendments, states also have legitimate interests in regulating elections to prevent fraud and ensure orderly conduct. Therefore, requiring voters to register their party affiliations ahead of time was deemed reasonable as long as it did not discriminate against any particular group or individual.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Meyers v. Thigpen et al., 1963, argued that the majority's decision to invalidate Washington State's requirement for voters to declare a party affiliation before participating in primary elections was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this law did not infrally upon any constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest by ensuring that only those truly affiliated with a political party could influence its candidate selection process. They also expressed concern about potential chaos resulting from non-affiliated or cross-party voting in primaries, which they felt could undermine the integrity of the electoral system. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous Supreme Court rulings on similar issues, arguing these precedents actually supported upholding Washington’s law rather than striking it down.