Clingman v. Beaver
 | |
| Clingman v. Beaver | |
| Docket number: 04-37 | |
| Term: 2004-2005 | |
| Court: Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Important dates | |
| Argument: January 19, 2005 Decided: May 23, 2005 | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice William Rehnquist • John Paul Stevens • Sandra Day O'Connor • Antonin Scalia • Anthony Kennedy • David Souter • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer | |
Clingman v. Beaver was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005. The plaintiffs alleged that Oklahoma's primary election law, which stipulated that only registered party members or unaffiliated voters could participate in a party's primary, violated their associational rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the law violated their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of the United States issued a 6-3 ruling reversing that decision.
Background
- See also: Primary elections in Oklahoma
Primary elections allow voters to determine which candidates compete in the general election and can be nonpartisan or partisan. In partisan primaries, voters choose the candidates they prefer for a political party to nominate in the general election.
The laws governing primary elections vary from state to state and can even vary within states by locality and political party. For example, only registered party members are allowed to vote in closed primaries, while registered party members and unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote in semi-closed primaries, and all voters are allowed to vote in open primaries.
Primary elections also vary by the way their outcomes are determined. Majority systems require the winning candidate to receive at least fifty percent of the votes cast, while plurality systems do not. In top-two primaries, top-four primaries, and blanket primaries, all candidates are listed on the same ballot, regardless of partisan affiliation.
Case history
At the time of the lawsuit, Oklahoma law stipulated that only registered party members and unaffiliated voters could participate in a party's primary election. Voters affiliated with one political party could not participate in the primaries of other parties. In 2000, the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma informed the Oklahoma Secretary of State that it desired to open its primary to all voters regardless of partisan affiliation. The secretary of state, in keeping with state law, declined to permit the party to allow voters registered with other parties to participate in its primary. The Libertarian Party, in concert with Democratic and Republican voters, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. They alleged that Oklahoma's primary participation law infringed upon their First Amendment associational rights.[2]
The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Oklahoma's law did not unconstitutionally burden the associational rights of the plaintiffs. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which reversed the ruling of the district court. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to take on the case. Oral argument took place on January 19, 2005.[1]
Decision
On May 23, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 to reverse the appellate court decision, finding that Oklahoma's primary participation law did not infringe upon voters' associational rights. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, which was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer. Thomas wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:[2]
| “ | The Constitution grants States 'broad power to prescribe the 'Time, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,' which power is matched by state control over the election process for state offices.' We have held that the First Amendment, among other things, protects the right of citizens 'to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views.' Regulations that impose severe burdens on associational rights must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. However, when regulations impose lesser burdens, 'a State’s important regulatory interests will usually be enough to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.' In Tashjian, this Court struck down, as inconsistent with the First Amendment, a closed primary system that prevented a political party from inviting Independent voters to vote in the party’s primary. This case presents a question that Tashjian left open: whether a State may prevent a political party from inviting registered voters of other parties to vote in its primary. As Tashjian acknowledged, opening a party’s primary 'to all voters, including members of other parties, … raise[s] a different combination of considerations.' We are persuaded that any burden Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary imposes is minor and justified by legitimate state interests.[3] | ” |
O'Connor penned a concurring opinion, in which Breyer joined in part. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter (who joined in part). Stevens wrote the following in his dissent:[4]
| “ | States do not have a valid interest in manipulating the outcome of elections, in protecting the major parties from competition, or in stunting the growth of new parties. While States do have a valid interest in conducting orderly elections and in encouraging the maximum participation of voters, neither of these interests overrides (or, indeed, even conflicts with) the valid interests of both the [Libertarian Party of Oklahoma] and the voters who wish to participate in its primary.[3] | ” |
See also
- Primary elections in Oklahoma
- United States v. Classic
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oyez, "Clingman v. Beaver," accessed February 15, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Clingman v. Beaver: Opinion of the Court," May 23, 2005
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Clingman v. Beaver: Dissenting Opinion," May 23, 2005
