our next case for argument morning is cook county republican party against supposed i'm worried about whether there's federal jurisdiction in this case and perhaps we can discuss that by all means it looks to me that your your argument and deed the gist of your brief is simply that our clients have a right under state law to be seated on the central committee that's right of course done it yet there's no diversity of citizenship in this case so why use an argument under state law properly before us i disagree federal jurisdiction that anticipating a federal defense does not create federal jurisdiction we were not the plaintiffs in this case i understand that the party was trying to end to support the federal defense but to repeat it's a pretty well established principle of federal jurisdiction that entish a painting a federal defense does not allow federal litigation so this and it doesn't seem to me to matter who anticipates the federal defense which the parties have not talked about because there was a federal claim by the party against cook county voting officials yes but the supplemental jurisdiction works only for things that are part of the same case or controversy and it's very difficult for me to see why whether mr leaf was on the ballot is the same case or controversy as whether mr soprano name is on the central committee and without there being the same case or controversy the supplemental jurisdiction doesn't work so have any thoughts about this i do this so in determining whether that injunction was granted the district court had to make the decision that whether or not support and to do it were committing and that's that came to the crux of whether the injunction would be granted or not because the the the argument in front of the board of elections what's it called filed to challenge was that as a elected committeeman she had the right to notice she didn't have the right to necessarily be part of the committee that voted  so obviously you haven't thought about jurisdiction equally obviously the republican party hasn't thought about jurisdiction jurisdictional statements in this brief in the two parties br do not make a serious effort to explain why there are certain skills we will we will give the parties fourteen days to file supplemental statements about jurisdiction but mr bolton i will be wanting to discuss this with be an infringement upon their right of association for two reasons the first being that it will force them to let people who they don't want to involve the internal that it is their party the second one is they don't force people they don't want to being involved official duties and then the party has somebody else who actually handles the internal party where a party or to work they can decide whoever they want to run the internal party it can be it could could be committee in which is decision they made and that was  but no state law requires that or it could be volunteers it could be dues paying members it's a completely up to them of who manages their party the fact that they chose to have committee men manage their party it's like no state statute acquiring them to make the exact same situation as the marquis or overstraining decision if if we have jurisdiction to deal with the merits i frankly don't see a big problem with the byelaw in general right but i do have a problem with the timing six days before the primary which might suggest that your clients would be entitled to some temporary relief but is that all you care about or are you worried are you looking for two to more permanently set aside this kind of loyalty requirement no i'm ok it's so that is part of it that we brought that up as those are party functions those are public functions in fact as to to the appointment of election judges that falls under the elections clause of the us constitution our new climate of election judges however the the the bipartisan genuine bipartisan produce a patient is in essence of the heart of that system right that's true and that's why the republican primary voters elected both of these candidates well maybe but  want to make sure that the folks in those roles are loyal to the particular party involved i just don't know if they can do it after voting has started and i agree that that's all your honor and i mean if that temporary relief the political parties domain this is the state's been made and it's up to the state to decide who they want how they want to do this it handles the situation under the under the elections clause the system that they created was that  loyalty requirements for party officials or to the affect that they don't and i you know in my brief i mention this to the effect that they don't if they believe that their disloyalty is i'm not saying supporte are not you know loyal republicans but if they don't want either person to be involved in actual party decisions internal party decisions they don't have to get them involved but that doesn't give them to the right to take away the right of the state of illinois term and how it runs its elections and how and who it has running its lections and guarantee the integrity of the elections which the you decision says a compelling state interest the decision of how the state of illinois creates this bipartisan balance is a decision for the state for the general assembly it's not a decision for the republican party it's not a decision as for the court even it's a decision under the constitution article one section four that goes to the states and this is the system that they your honor the jurisdiction i can give your honor of the reason that there is something middle jurisdiction is the sequence of events that led up to the filing of the lawsuit miss upon major objection that's true it was pending before the chicago board of election commissioners that's true what happened in the interim was a hearing officer report came down which record which found affirmatively found that suppose it was a lawful committeeman and therefore recommended to that panel or that the  a leaf be stricken so the republican party was in a position where we had a proceeding where we had no procedural right i understand that there is federal jurisdiction over the party suit against the board of election commission that's based on the party's own first amendment rights whether of the fact that the board defaulting shows there was a real case or controversy is no longer important the question for supplemental jurisdiction is whether the existence of these two people on board is the same case or controversy as the parties claim against the election officials seems to me there might be two different controversy that's what i'm trying to figure out because under thirteen sixty seven which of course neither sides brief even mentions that's the key honors because there was a t r o now in effect based upon due process which was stopping that proceeding in front of the board of elections that is essentially suspended is suspended by the t which was plainly before the board and was still unresolved before the board only because of the t r o that issue was still there before the board and the resolution of that issue it was a requirement that our first amendment rights which we could not defend in that action had to be had to be adjudicated so that our candidate for congress could stay on the ballot that issue was still there your honor that's why i believe that debris she was properly before judge shader to resolve because the entire matter before the board of elections which could potentially have very adverse consequences the republican party's effort and could potentially open the door to what judge shater called donkeys and elephants clothing was still pending before that board that issue had to be resolved your honor and that's why we went to judge shooter to ask and resolve it so that the entire matter would be reserved so it's and i seem to us at the time i think i can see the outline of your position we as i said we will give the parties fourteen days before the middle memoranda addressing what seems to be the key question which is whether the party's claim against the board and the party's claim against the two elected officials are the same case or controversy three way or i'll continue on with the rest of your honor's two very important points that i'd like to raise about the almost a predicate for what was going on here is illinois an open primary state anybody can walk into a polling place request a republican ballot of whatever political bent they are and and vote in the republican primary we have no contracts republican party have no control over that it's not a factor honor we have very little control over who is even going to be on that primary ballot because  illinois anyone who files with appropriate signatures be they republicans democrats or anyone else can get on the ballot so we face a situation where we cannot control who gets on the ballot of the co nor can we control who votes a second point that i would  point out the court in vance's that the i think the court's aware of the rate of the registration and voting totals in this city in this opponent's ward there were over seventeen thousand democratic votes in the last primary there eight hundred in change for the republicans are point about with the worry the concern of the republican party who is now evident that it is not that hard given the signature requirements given the the voting differences for a democrat to is the first amendment right i won't go over i believe the courts quite familiar that we believe that there is a severe burden because of the way that this statute invades our internal processes of stating how we even elect the members of the central committee which is the effect the part i understand your argument on that point in general i think but i had trouble by taking this action six days before voting closes and after it has already begun your honor what happened is the time sequ because the papers are only filed approximately december first i don't have the exact date for your order but we can get it what happens is your honor mr cleveland the chairman reviews as he does start reviewing all these people to see who they are because as i said we don't even know most of the time so he was reviewing the petitions that's when this pattern began to be evident to him that there was a wave of democrat wave of candidates with no republican voting record that suddenly were on the ballot which he had not seen before so with any faces a problem your hon or which is that he has to go to the central committee of the cook county republican party to do something about that there are two members of that committee he has the formula he has to first find out the problem then he has to come up with a solution the problem but then he has to get some sort of a meeting with enough members there so that there's a of sufficient quorum of the bylaws of i believe sixty five percent might be sixty in order to get that by law passed provides protection so in effect was really going on your honor is there we're going as fast as it can it was not a case of trying to sabotage any candidates it was simply trying to get what they thought was vital protection in place before that before that primary so that at least when the votes went down on primary day they would have some sort of protection of their what is this idea that the republicans are a public bodies that allows a compelling state interest your honour's would be a very disturbing thought with this section that with the section twenty five twenty six dash five and the appointment of the of the legislators it's a very disturbing result if state can pass unilaterally pass a mandate upon a republican party that it will now select of appoint legislators and then bootstrap that statute into a compelling state interest that now allows that same legislature to dictate to this party how it will lect its people and what kind of people will be there and be on their committee to run their party and it will offer of your honor that the nomination process recognized by the jones court as one of the most crucial parts for exclusion of people who are not of your political tenets it only gets more except you waited when we're talking about a natural legislator legislator that's now going to vote on the matter before the legislator that is crucial that that person be of the republican tenets so therefore the exclusion as some prefer actus in this case is vital so that the republican tenets and their ability to put in office a person that of their ilk is now preserved you'd agree that the state can require residency to require that these be selected by elections yes judge we're not going to actually judge requirements judge we're actually not asking that section seven dash eight be declared unconstitutional all all we're asking is that we be allowed to put on a further qualification based upon our first amendment rights to say who will be on the central committee of that part seems to us that it is the right of the party to say that not the right of the state legislature do you think the state could impose a gender quota on the committee your honor gender quotas have  is that when we get into the internal workings of a political party essentially the state's ability to dictate almost anything as to who is going to be in that role right adds the problem is just the  semifinal if you were will but starting in one nine hundred eighty the supreme court began to shift very strongly towards the first amendment rights of the parties to start to state what will be within their internal management so on that would be my response to your question is that the court now is taking the position that the parties ability to state what it's going to have as its structure under the first amendment now is paramount in the supreme court so i don't think we should treat mirch don't like to point out a case that we only touched upon in our brief but we did cite which is the rodriguez case in puerto rico as far as our ability to decide what that procedure will be to nominate a candidate or nominate a legislator in that case and from puerto rico it was very similar in superficially in that of a legislator died the puerto rican statute stated that the party would be the one making the decision as to appointing the replacement and the puerto rican party held what was virtually a closed primary in order to decide who that person would be people who were not in that close primary of the other party sued saying because of our freedom our right of association you have to let us into that  what the supreme court said was very interesting they said once the once the state gives over to that party that the power to make that decision how the party makes that decision is up to the part so that i how much the current supreme court precedents sort of draws a line that once you get into that process then it is up to the state and so i think the way it's going back to the twenty five to twenty six dash five is that we believe that central certainly not because the election the election clause in the constitution is limited to the mechanics of the election and we feel that the compelling state interest being asserted by this opponent on behalf of the state of  illinois must be relating directly to the conduct of the election not going further to say well because we're in charge of elections we get to dictate this we get the dictate that we're lying back on simply because there is an election we don't believe the next case that there's any o justice or judge power you mentioned that you know this goes back to mary daly this is if they're worried about donkeys and elephants clothing this isn't a recent phenomenon they didn't have to make this rule six days before an election they could have made it ten years twenty years forty years ago for whatever reason they did it right before the election and again the i've never said we've never said that the republicans are public b no one's ever said and illinois law it doesn't say that these committeeman are the people who run the republican party that these people are the people individuals who run the campaigns in the ward maybe that's my tradition maybe that's by the by laws but holds as you distinguished mark europe still holds and that if they decide to give the committee or committeeman power over their party that's their decision they don't have to make that decision and what you call internal external committeeman or whether you just call it a separate party you have any response to what the what you said in footnote twenty two about march and about the limits of that holding right you get you said it it didn't mention it party didn't make an issue of the fact that this committee was involved in filling vacancies a nomination they said that this is the issue was that you know that they did this they gave this committee the power to run the party or that and they couldn't they said that the issue of the composition was that this they couldn't decide what to do with a competition was and that this committee ran the party