The Full Wiki

More info on California Democratic Party v. Jones

California Democratic Party v. Jones: Wikis

Advertisements
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California Democratic Party v. Jones
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 24, 2000
Decided June 26, 2000
Full case name California Democratic Party, et al. v. Bill Jones, Secretary of State of California, et al.
Citations 530 U.S. 567 (more)
120 S. Ct. 2402; 147 L. Ed. 2d 502; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 4303; 68 U.S.L.W. 4604; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5083; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 6777; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3867; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 479
Prior history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Holding
The Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Concurrence Kennedy
Dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg (part I)
Laws applied
California's prop. 198

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.

Contents

Prior history

In California, candidates for public office can gain access to the general ballot by winning a qualified political party's primary. In 1996, voter approved Proposition 198 changed California's partisan primary from a closed primary, in which only a political party's members can vote on its nominees, to a blanket primary, in which each voter's ballot lists every candidate regardless of party affiliation and allows the voter to choose freely among them. The candidate of each party who wins the most votes is that party's nominee for the general election. The California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party have historically prohibited nonmembers from voting in their party's primary. Each political party filed suit against Bill Jones, the California Secretary of State, alleging that the blanket primary violated their First Amendment right of association. Jones countered that a blanket primary will intensify the election and allow for better representation in elected office. Siding with Jones, District Judge David F. Levi (now Dean of Duke Law School) held that the primary's burden on the parties' associational rights was not severe and was justified by substantial state interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Case

California Democratic Party v. Jones presented the following question: Does California's voter-approved Proposition 198, which changes its partisan primary from a closed primary to a blanket primary, violate political parties' First Amendment right of association?

In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by—those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary."

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Stevens wrote: "This Court's willingness to invalidate the primary schemes of 3 States and cast serious constitutional doubt on the schemes of 29 others at the parties' behest is an extraordinary intrusion into the complex and changing election laws of the States."

See also

External links

Advertisements

Source material

Up to date as of January 22, 2010

From Wikisource

California Democratic Party v. Jones
Syllabus
California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.Excerpted from California Democratic Party v. Jones on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinion
Kennedy
Dissenting Opinion
Stevens
Wikipedia-logo.png
Wikipedia article
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
530 U.S. 567
California Democratic Party v. Jones
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
99-401 Argued: April 24, 2000 --- Decided: June 26, 2000


One way that candidates for public office in California gain access to the general ballot is by winning a qualified political party's primary. In 1996, Proposition 198 changed the State's partisan primary from a closed primary, in which only a political party's members can vote on its nominees, to a blanket primary, in which each voter's ballot lists every candidate regardless of party affiliation and allows the voter to choose freely among them. The candidate of each party who wins the most votes is that party's nominee for the general election. Each of petitioner political parties prohibits nonmembers from voting in the party's primary. They filed suit against respondent state official, alleging, inter alia, that the blanket primary violated their First Amendment rights of association. Respondent Californians for an Open Primary intervened. The District Court held that the primary's burden on petitioners' associational rights was not severe and was justified by substantial state interests. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Held: California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. Pp. 4-19.

(a) States play a major role in structuring and monitoring the primary election process, but the processes by which political parties select their nominees are not wholly public affairs that States may regulate freely. To the contrary, States must act within limits imposed by the Constitution when regulating parties' internal processes. See, e.g., Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214. Respondents misplace their reliance on Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, and Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, which held not that party affairs are public affairs, free of First Amendment protections, see, e.g., Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, but only that, when a State prescribes an election process that gives a special role to political parties, the parties' discriminatory action becomes state action under the Fifteenth Amendment. This Nation has a tradition of political associations in which citizens band together to promote candidates who espouse their political views. The First Amendment protects the freedom to join together to further common political beliefs, id., at 214-215, which presupposes the freedom to identify those who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people, Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 122. In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in its candidate-selection process. That process often determines the party's positions on significant public policy issues, and it is the nominee who is the party's ambassador charged with winning the general electorate over to its views. The First Amendment reserves a special place, and accords a special protection, for that process, Eu, supra, at 224, because the moment of choosing the party's nominee is the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power, Tashjian, supra, at 216. California's blanket primary violates these principles. Proposition 198 forces petitioners to adulterate their candidate-selection process-a political party's basic function-by opening it up to persons wholly unaffiliated with the party, who may have different views from the party. Such forced association has the likely outcome-indeed, it is Proposition 198's intended outcome-of changing the parties' message. Because there is no heavier burden on a political party's associational freedom, Proposition 198 is unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358. Pp. 4-14.

(b) None of respondents' seven proffered state interests-producing elected officials who better represent the electorate, expanding candidate debate beyond the scope of partisan concerns, ensuring that disenfranchised persons enjoy the right to an effective vote, promoting fairness, affording voters greater choice, increasing voter participation, and protecting privacy-is a compelling interest justifying California's intrusion into the parties' associational rights. Pp. 14-18.

169 F.3d 646, reversed.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined as to Part I.


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message