Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
 | |
| Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party | |
| Docket number: 06-713 | |
| Term: 2007-2008 | |
| Court: Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Important dates | |
| Argument: October 1, 2007 Decided: March 18, 2008 | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts • John Paul Stevens • Antonin Scalia • Anthony Kennedy • David Souter • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito | |
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008. The case was brought by Washington's Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian parties, which alleged that the state's top-two primary system prevented political parties from determining which candidates they would endorse, violating of the parties' associational rights as expressed in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On March 18, 2008, the court ruled 7-2 that Washington's top-two primary system did not infringe upon political parties' associational rights, allowing the top-two primary system to stand.[1][2]
Background
- See also: Primary elections in Washington
In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Democratic Party of Washington v. Reed, finding that Washington's existing blanket primary system was unconstitutional (the Ninth Circuit reasoned that Washington's blanket primary was substantially the same as California's, which had been struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in California Democratic Party v. Jones). In light of this ruling, Washington State Grange, a nonprofit advocacy group for rural residents of the state, sponsored Initiative 872, a ballot measure providing for the establishment of a top-two primary in which all candidates would appear on the same primary election ballot using whatever political party designations they desired with the top two vote-getters, regardless of partisan affiliation, advancing to the general election. On November 4, 2004, Washington voters approved the initiative by a vote of 59.85 percent to 40.15 percent.[3][4]
Case history
In May 2005, the Republican Party of Washington filed suit against county officials to bar implementation of Initiative 872, alleging that the top-two primary system infringed upon political parties' associational rights by preventing them from controlling candidate endorsements (i.e., the law prevented a political party from determining which candidates would be entitled to use that party's designation on the ballot). The Democratic and Libertarian parties joined the suit as plaintiffs, and the state of Washington and Washington State Grange replaced county officials as the defendants in the case. On July 29, 2005, a federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and issued an injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing Initiative 872. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's ruling on August 22, 2006. The Ninth Circuit's ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard oral argument in the case on October 1, 2007. The following question was presented to the court:[3][4][5]
| “ | Does Washington’s primary election system in which all voters are allowed to vote for any candidate, and in which the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of party
affiliation, violate the associational rights of political parties because candidates are permitted to identify their political party preference on the ballot?[6] |
” |
Decision
On March 18, 2008, the court ruled 7-2 in favor of the political parties, finding that Washington's top-two primary system did not infringe upon their associational rights. The majority opinion was penned by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. and Clarence Thomas. Thomas wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:[3][4]
| “ | Respondents ask this Court to invalidate a popularly enacted election process that has never been carried out. Immediately after implementing regulations were enacted, respondents obtained a permanent injunction against the enforcement of I–872. The First Amendment does not require this extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people. Because I–872 does not on its face provide for the nomination of candidates or compel political parties to associate with or endorse candidates, and because there is no basis in this facial challenge for presuming that candidates’ party-preference designations will confuse voters, I–872 does not on its face severely burden respondents’ associational rights. We accordingly hold that I–872 is facially constitutional.[6] | ” |
| —Associate Justice Clarence Thomas | ||
Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion, which was joined by Alito. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Scalia wrote the following in his dissent:[3][4]
| “ | The electorate’s perception of a political party’s beliefs is colored by its perception of those who support the party; and a party’s defining act is the selection of a candidate and advocacy of that candidate’s election by conferring upon him the party’s endorsement. When the state-printed ballot for the general election causes a party to be associated with candidates who may not fully (if at all) represent its views, it undermines both these vital aspects of political association. ... Because Washington has not demonstrated that this severe burden upon parties’ associational rights is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest—indeed, because it seems to me Washington’s only plausible interest is precisely to reduce the effectiveness of political parties—I would find the law unconstitutional.[6] | ” |
| —Associate Justice Antonin Scalia | ||
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oyez, "Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party," accessed December 20, 2017
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party," accessed December 20, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Legal Information Institute, "Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (06-713)," accessed December 20, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party: Opinion," March 18, 2008
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," November 20, 2006
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
