Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut
 | |
| Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut | |
| Docket number: 85-766 | |
| Term: 1986 | |
| Court: Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Important dates | |
| Argument: October 8, 1986 Decided: December 10, 1986 | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice William Rehnquist • John Paul Stevens • Sandra Day O'Connor • Antonin Scalia • William J. Brennan, Jr. • Byron White • Thurgood Marshall • Harry Blackmun • Lewis Powell | |
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1986. The Republican Party of Connecticut alleged that a Connecticut statute mandating that only registered party members could participate in a party's primary election violated the party's associational rights as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution. On December 10, 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Republicans, finding that the Connecticut law infringed upon their associational rights.[1][2][3]
Background
- See also: Primary elections in Connecticut
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
A Connecticut law enacted in 1956 stipulated that only the registered members of a political party could participate in that party's primary election; unaffiliated voters could not participate in a party's primary. In 1984, the Republican Party of Connecticut adopted a party rule opening its primary election to unaffiliated voters, contravening the 1956 statute. The party brought suit in federal district court against Julia Tashjian in her capacity as Connecticut's secretary of state, alleging that the 1956 statute infringed upon the party's associational rights as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A federal district court found in favor of the Republican Party, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed that decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard oral argument in the case on October 8, 1986.[1][2]
Decision
On December 10, 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 to affirm the appellate court decision, finding that the Connecticut statute in question "impermissibly burdens the rights of the [Republican] Party and its members protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments." Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell. Marshall wrote the following in the court's opinion:[2]
| “ | The State argues that its statute is well designed to save the Republican Party from undertaking a course of conduct destructive of its own interests. But on this point 'even if the State were correct, a State, or a court, may not constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the Party.' The Party's determination of the boundaries of its own association, and of the structure which best allows it to pursue its political goals, is protected by the Constitution. We conclude that the State's enforcement, under these circumstances, of its closed primary system burdens the First Amendment rights of the Party. The interests which the appellant adduces in support of the statute are insubstantial, and accordingly the statute, as applied to the Party in this case, is unconstitutional.[4] | ” |
| —Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall | ||
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Scalia wrote the following in his dissent:[2]
| “ | Appellees' only complaint is that the Party cannot leave the selection of its candidate to persons who are not members of the Party, and are unwilling to become members. It seems to me fanciful to refer to this as an interest in freedom of association between the members of the Republican Party and the putative independent voters. The Connecticut voter who, while steadfastly refusing to register as a Republican, casts a vote in the Republican primary, forms no more meaningful an 'association' with the Party than does the independent or the registered Democrat who responds to questions by a Republican Party pollster. If the concept of freedom of association is extended to such casual contacts, it ceases to be of any analytic use.[4] | ” |
| —Associate Justice Antonin Scalia | ||
Associate Justice John Paul Stevens penned a separate dissenting opinion, which was joined by Scalia.[2]
See also
- Primary elections in Connecticut
- United States v. Classic
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oyez, "Tashjian, Secretary of State of Connecticut v. Republican Party of Connecticut," accessed February 16, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut," December 10, 1986
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Important Cases Regarding Primaries," accessed February 16, 2018
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
