Term: 2007
Docket: 06-713
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, Et Al.
- Pro
06-713 WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WA REPUBLICAN PARTY DECISION BELOW: 460 F.3d 1108 CONSOLIDATED WITH 06-730 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 2/26/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: In California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 585-586 (2000), this Court specified how States could structure a top-two primary system that does not violate the associational rights of a political party. Pursuant to the Initiative power which the People of the State of Washington reserved to themselves in their State Constitution, the voters of the State of Washington enacted a top-two primary law that the Washington State Grange had drafted to comply with Jones. That law makes the State primary a contest to select the two most popular candidates for the November ballot - regardless of party nominations or party selection. That law also allows candidates for certain offices to disclose on the ballot the name of the party (if any) which that candidate personally prefers. The Ninth Circuit invalidated this top-two primary system in its entirety, holding that the First Amendment (applied to the States through the 14th Amendment) prohibits a State from so allowing a candidate to disclose the name of the party he or she personally prefers on the ballot. Does the First Amendment prohibit top-two election systems that allow a candidate to disclose on the ballot the name of the party he or she personally prefers? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-35774, 05-35780
The U.S. Supreme Court case Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, et al., 2007 revolved around a dispute over the constitutionality of a state law that changed the primary election system in Washington state. The new law allowed voters to select their preferred candidates regardless of party affiliation and required only the top two vote-getters to advance to the general election, irrespective of their political affiliations. The Washington State Republican Party challenged this "top-two" primary system arguing it violated its First Amendment right by not allowing them control over who could affiliate with their party during elections and potentially causing voter confusion about candidate's actual party affiliations. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding this new primary system (Washington State Grange). They reasoned that on its face, there was no constitutional violation as it did not impose any severe burden on political parties' rights since parties could still communicate their endorsements or preferences for certain candidates.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing candidates to list their preferred party affiliation on ballots could lead to confusion and potential misrepresentation. The dissenters believed that voters might mistakenly assume a candidate is officially associated with or endorsed by a particular party just because they listed it as their preference, even if the party itself did not endorse them or agree with their views. They also expressed concern about infringing upon political parties' First Amendment rights of association, arguing that parties should have control over who can identify themselves as being affiliated with them on an official ballot. Furthermore, they felt there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support claims that this system would not cause voter confusion or violate parties' rights.
