Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-309_4f15.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–309 
_________________ 

JOHN C. CARNEY, GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE, 
PETITIONER v. JAMES R. ADAMS 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT 
OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

[December 10, 2020]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring. 
I agree that respondent Adams did not demonstrate Ar-
ticle III standing to bring this suit.  Because the constitu-
tional  questions  in  this  case  will  likely  be  raised  again,  I 
write separately to highlight two important considerations
that may inform their answers. 

First, there are potentially material differences between 
two  separate  rules  the  Delaware  Constitution  imposes  on 
its courts: the “major party” requirement and the “bare ma-
jority” requirement.  Bare majority requirements preclude 
any single political party from having more than a bare ma-
jority of the seats in a public body.  Such requirements have
existed in various forums for roughly 150 years, currently
feature in a large number of public bodies, and have been 
shown to help achieve ideological diversity.  Major party re-
quirements  like  Delaware’s,  by  contrast,  preclude  anyone 
who is not a member of the two major political parties from 
serving in a public body.  They are far rarer than their bare 
majority cousins, and they arguably impose a greater bur-
den on First Amendment associational rights.  These differ-
ences may require distinct constitutional analyses.

Second,  that  possibility,  in  turn,  raises  the  question 
whether Delaware’s major party and bare majority require-
ments  are  severable  from  one  another,  such  that  one  re-