Document: 414 U.S. 441 94 S.Ct. 656 38 L.Ed.2d 635 COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA et al., Appellants,v.Edgar D. WHITCOMB, etc., al. No. 72—1040. Argued Oct. 16, 1973. Decided Jan. 9, 1974. Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, See 415 952, 1476. Syllabus The application of appellants (the Communist Party Indiana, certain its officers and potential voters, candidates for President Vice President) a place on the Indiana ballot 1972 general election was rejected failure to submit statutory loyalty oath stating that 'does not advocate overthrow local, state or National Government by force violence.' Appellants, contending statute unconstitutional, thereupon filed this action in District Court injunctive declaratory relief. On September 28, 1972, three-judge court declared constitutional ordered Election Board ballot, but only if required submitted. After qualified submitted rejected, appellats October 3 sought order directing accept such oath, same day requested reconsideration 28 order. next denied both motions. 10 notice appeal Court, which it later withdraw so might act appellants' motion be amended respects. 31, allowed withdrawal amend. Appellants refiled their November 29, appellees contend is untimely. Held: 1. Appellants' within 60-day period prescribed U.S.C. § 2101(b), since appellees' suspended finality judgment until Court's denial 4 restored it, time thus began run from 4. Pp. 445—446. 2. requirement violates First Fourteenth Amendments. 446—450. (a) principle guarantees free speech press do permit State forbid proscribe advocacy use law violation except where directed inciting producing imminent lawless likely produce action, applies regulation burdening access rights association political party one's choice, casting an effective running office, are interests as substantial those other areas has protected against schemes contrary 448—449. (b) For purposes determining whether grant group advocating violent abstract doctrine need regarded necessarily unlawful action. P. 449—450. Reversed. Sanford Jay Rosen, New York City, appellants. Theodore L. Sendak, Crown Point, Ind., appellees. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case. question decision Amendments violated Indiana's requirement, Ind.Ann.Stat. 29—3812 (1969), IC 1971, 1—11—12, '(n)o existing newly-organized organization shall permitted have names printed used at any affidavit, officers, under does national government violence . ..'1 2 new election. Appellees members. When applied August Ballot without submitting Board, advice Attorney General application. Northern seeking declaration unconstitutionality 29—3812, injunction requiring ballot. A convened court, unreported opinion, provision challenged issued nominees '(i)n event affidavit keeping with memorandum .'2 that, addition language, added following: 'The term herein meaning given Supreme United States Yates v. States, 354 298 320 (77 1064, 1356), 'the teaching concrete forcible government, principles divorced action." appellants, 3, returned it. day, requesting 28.3 4, motions entered day. enable them seek emergency That effort abandoned, then leave also 10, amend include determination 'only insofar proscribes promoting distinguished doctrine.' granting denying memorandum. 5 29. moved dismiss jurisdictionally untimely, arguing appeal, expired 27. We postponed consideration our jurisdiction merits. 410 981, 93 1504, 36 176 (1973). hold timely. Appellees' Time 29 timely.4 As merits, we Amendments,5 therefore reverse Court.6 6 Loyalty cases strangers see Note, Oaths, 77 Yale L.J. 739. (1968), questions presented earlier arising limit had plenary consideration.7 decided case pressure ballot-printing deadline, states no reasons cites authorities support court's holding 'that portion providing violence,' hence enforceable Indiana.' 7 deny exacts broad embracing well Yet held many contexts render invalid statutes regulating limited And, often emphasized, '(p)recision must touchstone area closely touching most precious freedoms.' NAACP Button, 371 415, 438, 83 328, 340, 9 405 (1963). 8 recently summarized evolved Brandenburg Ohio, 395 444, 89 1827, 23 430 (1969). expressly overruled Whitney California, 274 357, 47 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927), 'without more, 'advocating' means effect economic change involves danger security may outlaw it.' U.S., 447, S.Ct., 1829. For, said: '(L)ater decisions fashioned incite said Noto 367 290, 297—298 (81 1517, 1520—1521, 836) (1961), mere moral propriety even necessity resort violence, preparing steeling action.' fails draw distinction impermissibly intrudes upon freedoms guaranteed It sweeps condemnation Constitution immunized governmental control. Cf. 298, 1356 (1957) ..' Id., 447 448, action' been directly advocacy, Scales 203, 81 1469, 782 (1961); 836 (1957); regulatory determine eligibility public employment, Keyishian Regents, 385 589, 87 675, 17 629 (1967); Elfbrandt Russell, 384 11, 86 1238, 16 321 (1966); Cramp Public Instruction, 368 278, 82 275, 285 Robel, 389 258, 88 419, 19 508 tax exemptions, Speiser Randall, 357 513, 78 1332, 1460 (1958); fitness justifying disbarment, Schware Bar Examiners, 353 232, 752, 796 (1957). 11 argue should nevertheless obtain perceive reason make exception, suggest none. Indeed, all equally applicable here. 'To sure, administration electoral process matter largely entrusts States. But, exercising powers supervision over elections setting qualifications infringe basic protections.' Kusper Pontikes, 51, 57, 303, 307, 260 (footnote omitted). At stake Amendment associate others common advancement beliefs ideas. right choice integral part freedom.' Ibid., Williams Rhodes, 393 23, 30, 5, 21 24 (1968). members Bullock Carter, 134, 142—144, 92 849, 855—856, 31 (1972). 12 Thus, vote because urges 'to something, now future (but) merely believe something,' supra, 325, 1080, certainly exemption, practice law. exercise franchise unimpaired manner preservative civil Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 562, 84 1362, 1381, 506 (1964). 'Other rights, basic, illusory undermined.' Wesberry Sanders, 376 1, 17, 526, 535, 481 13 argue: 'It fraudulent revolution democratic form disguise itself very forms democracy seeks subvert gain carry nefarious ends.' Brief 7. Again, they refers official actions itself, reducing minimum possibility 'innocent involvement' activities considered advocacy.' 10. understand appellees, argument least advocates reject proposition. Its acceptance would return 'thoroughly discredited' regime unanimously 449, 1829, 1830.8 14 15 POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST join, concurring result. I concur In my view quite unnecessary reach issue addressed established trial certified Democratic Republican Parties despite officials affidavits (1969).1 discriminatory preference parties State's system can justified 'compelling interest.' present case, colorable justification offered placing burdens imposed two parties.2 follows equal protection Amendment.3 Section reads pertinent follows: 'No recognized overthrow, advocates, carries on, program sedition treason, affiliated cooperates relation foreign individuals government. Any existence passage ticket one more times prior election, doctrines prohibited act, insert plank platform act. No cooperate nor party, provided board county having charge printing appear.' attacks made brought parties, American Independent Peace Freedom Party. All three challenged, 'advocacy' provision, file 'it government.' unconstitutional. accepted were placed elections. appealed summarily affirmed. Whitcomb Party, 976, 1502, 173 29—3801 Ind.Stat.Ann. 3—1—11—1 provides listing files petitions containing signatures one-half percent 'of total cast secretary last preceding election.' sufficiency respect discussed although issuance presupposed adverse reconsider ineffective divested could revested notice. But clearly timely, reduced attack untimeliness Rule 13(1) filing jurisdictional statement January 26, Timely docketing not, however, requisite. Johnson Florida, 391 596, 598, 1713, 1714, 20 838 brief invokes Control Act 1954, 68 Stat. 776, 50 842, '(t)he (is) entitled privileges, immunities attendant legal bodies created laws subdivision thereof difficulty understanding way relevant issues relied either when event, bars maintaining rejected. U.S.A. Catherwood, 389, 1465, 919 (1961). constitutionally precluded different Art. II, federal officer VI, cl. 3. Cole Richardson, 676, 593 result address contentions. facially valid. Board's apparent require Parties, major comply rises level applied, 'prosecutorial discretion.' note, testimony clerk, entirely silent behind omission. E.g., Lisker Kelley, 401 928, 91 927, 210 (1971), aff'g, 315 F.Supp. 777 (D.C.1970); Gerende Supervisors, 341 56, 565, 95 745 (1951), presenting challenge Maryland imposing municipal office rested narrowing construction tendered (of Maryland) during oral avoid argued.' Whitehill Elkins, 54, 58, 184, 186, 228 (1967). And Socialist Labor Gilligan, 406 583, 1716, 32 317 (1972), dismissed insufficiently mature adjudication, authority Rescue Army Municipal City Los Angeles, 331 549, 67 1409, 1666 (1947). 1521, prosecution Smith Act, 18 2385, limitations criminal proved 'some direct circumstantial evidence call sufficiently strong pervasive lend color otherwise ambiguous theoretical material regarding teaching, justify inference fairly imputed whole, some narrow segment complaint alleged 3812 subjected proof issue. maintains cannot raised statement. Ante, 446—447 n. 6. 15(1)(c) provides, 'will deemed every subsidiary comprised therein' 'questions set forth therein will court.' falls gravamen considered. See, e.g., Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 365, 372 1856, 1861, 1249 Moreover, appropriate judicial power requires important unnecessarily narrower grounds exist according though submissions. Boynton Virginia, 364 454, 457, 182, 206 (1960). Barr Matteo, 355 171, 172, 204, 205, 179 intimation prima facie deprivation 'silent omission' (ante, 6) misses point. Nothing shown than fact discriminatorily applied. who come statute. patently unconstitutional statute, there occasion broader today. Although express conclusion issue, noted first type candidate course, rather presidential candidate. argued (1957), progeny controlling Under IV, bound Constitution,' 8, swear he 'faithfully execute Office best (his) Ability, preserve, protect defend States.' imposes affirmative duty 'take Care Laws faithfully executed.' Neither these explicit obligations responsibility chief executive enforce rule line cases.

Category: 2