The Storer v. Brown case in 1973 revolved around California's election laws, specifically the "sore loser" statute which prevented candidates who lost in primary elections from running as independent candidates in general elections. The plaintiffs, including a former congressman and several voters, argued that this law violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association by limiting their political choices. However, the Supreme Court upheld California's law with a 7-2 decision. The majority opinion held that while states must respect citizens' constitutional rights when regulating elections, they also have broad powers to ensure these events are orderly and fair. Therefore, restrictions like the "sore loser" rule were permissible if they served valid state interests without severely burdening individual rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Storer v. Brown, Justice William O. Douglas argued that California's disaffiliation requirement violated the First Amendment rights of independent candidates and their supporters by imposing an undue burden on their freedom to associate politically. He contended that this law effectively barred any candidate who had been affiliated with a political party within one year prior to the upcoming election from running as an independent, thereby limiting voters' choices and stifening political competition. Furthermore, he believed it was unconstitutional for states to restrict access to ballots based solely on past party affiliation or lack thereof because such restrictions could potentially discriminate against certain groups or individuals without sufficient justification. In his view, these stringent requirements did not serve compelling state interests but rather hindered democratic processes by preventing new ideas and voices from entering into public discourse.