Document: 520 U.S. 351117 S.Ct. 1364137 L.Ed.2d 589 Michele L. TIMMONS,v.TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY. No. 95-1608. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 4, 1996. Decided April 28, 1997. Syllabus * Most ban multiple-party, or "fusion,'' candidacies for elected office. Minnesota's laws prohibit an individual from appearing on ballot as candidate more than one party. When respondent, a chapter national New Party, chose its state representative who was already another political party, local election officials refused to accept Party's nominating petition. The Party filed suit against petitioners, Minnesota officials, contending that State's antifusion violated associational rights under First and Fourteenth Amendments. District granted petitioners summary judgment, but Appeals reversed, finding fusion unconstitutional because it severely burdened not narrowly tailored advance valid interests in avoiding intraparty discord party splintering, maintaining stable system, voter confusion. Held: does violate Pp. ____-____. (a) While Amendment protects right citizens associate form parties advancement common goals ideas, Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Election Comm., 518 ----, 116 2309, 135 795 (1996), may enact reasonable regulations parties, elections, ballots reduce election- campaign-related disorder, Burdick Takushi, 504 428, 433, 112 2059, 2062-2063, 119 245. deciding whether law violates rights, this must weigh character magnitude burden rule imposes those State contends justify burden, consider extent which concerns make necessary. Id., at 434, S.Ct., 2063. Regulations imposing severe burdens be compelling interest. Lesser burdens, however, trigger less exacting review, important regulatory will usually enough reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions. Ibid. No bright line separates permissible election-related regulation infringements freedoms. Storer Brown, 415 724, 730, 94 1274, 1279, 39 714. (b) rights. do restrict ability members endorse, support, vote anyone they like directly limit access ballot. preferred still appear ballot, although party's candidate. are also silent parties' internal structure, governance, policy-making. Eu San Francisco County Democratic Central 489 214, 109 1013, 103 271, Tashjian Conn., 479 208, 107 544, 93 514, distinguished. Instead, these provisions universe potential candidates nominee limit, slightly, send particularized message, voters, about nature support However, designed primarily elect candidates, serve fora expression. See Burdick, supra, 438, 2065-2066. (c) Because impose is required show, interests, asserted "sufficiently weighty limitation'' Norman Reed, 502 279, 288-289, 698, 705, 711. Elaborate, empirical verification weightiness required. Munro Socialist Workers 189, 195-196, 533, 537-538, 499. Here, justified by "correspondingly weighty'' integrity stability. certainly have interest protecting integrity, fairness, efficiency their processes means electing public officials. E.g., Bullock Carter, 405 134, 145, 92 849, 856-857, 31 92. fears could easily exploit way associating his name with popular slogans catchphrases, transforming choosing billboard advertising. It concerned might enable minor major candidate, bootstrap major-party status next circumvent nominating-petition requirement ensure only bona fide third strong stability systems, see, e.g., Eu, 226, 1021-1022, permit completely insulate two-party system independent candidates' competition influence, Anderson Celebrezze, 460 780, 802, 1564, 1577, 75 547, paternalistic license protect consequences own disagreements, 227, 1022. may, practice, favor traditional system. far burdensome California law, upheld Storer, U.S., 728, 1278, denied positions any affiliated time during year preceding primary election, similarly interests. expresses no view policy-based arguments concerning wisdom fusion. 73 F.3d 196, reversed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., dissenting opinion, GINSBURG, joined, Parts I II SOUTER, opinion. Richard S. Slowes, St. Paul, MN, petitioners. Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, MA, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 office.1 challenged case Minn.Stat. §§204B.06, subd. 1(b) 204B.04, 2 (1994). We hold such prohibition Amendments Constitution. Respondent chartered Party. Petitioners In 1994, Representative Andy Dawkins running unopposed Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) primary.2 That same month, office November 1994 general election. Neither nor DFL objected, signed affidavit candidacy §204B.06 Minnesota, prohibits candidacies.3 had DFL's nomination, petition.4 3 judgment defendants, concluding "a non-discriminatory process'', noting "issues mechanics . are, large part, matters policy best left deliberative bodies themselves.'' Twin Cities Area McKenna, 863 F.Supp. 988, 994 (D.Minn.1994). 4 198 (C.A.8 1996). First, court determined "unquestionably'' "severe[ly]'' "freedom select standard bearer represents ideologies preferences'' "broaden base participation [its] activities.'' (citations quotation marks omitted). then decided absolute multiple-party nominations "broader necessary interests'' confusion, remaining nomination were "simply unjustified case.'' 199-200. noted, Seventh Circuit Wisconsin's similar Swamp Kennedy, 950 F.2d 383, 386 (1991) (fusion did and, even if did, burden), cert. denied, 505 1204, 2992, 120 870 (1992). Nonetheless, concluded fusion-ban provisions, (1994), certiorari, 517 1846, 134 947 now reverse. 5 Fusion regular feature Gilded Age American politics. Particularly West Midwest, issue-oriented Grangers, Independents, Greenbackers, Populists often succeeded through Democrats, vice versa. Republicans, sometimes arranged South, part strategy encouraging exploiting divisions within dominant generally Argersinger, "A Place Table'': Politics Antifusion Laws, 85 Amer. Hist. Rev. 287, 288-290 (1980). 6 rather governments, printed distributed ballots. These contained names particular so drop ticket box without knowing supported other well. But after 1888 presidential widely regarded having been plagued fraud, many moved "Australian system.'' Under official containing all legally nominated expense polling places. 290-292; 446-447, 2070-2071, 245 (1992) (KENNEDY, dissenting) (States' move Australian "progressive reform fraudulent practices''). By 1896, use widespread. During period, enacted reforms, including bans candidacies. 288, 295-298. banned 1901.5 This trend has continued century, become exception, rule. Today, permitted just few States,6 plays significant role York.7 7 ideas. 2316, (1996) ("The expression views "core' activity individuals, committees''); 704-705, 711 (" [C]onstitutional create develop new advances constitutional like-minded voters gather pursuit ends''); 548-549, 514 (1986). As result, government, activities enjoy protection. 230, 1024, 271 (1989) (noting "discretion how organize itself, conduct affairs, leaders''); Tashjian, 224, 553-554 (Constitution "determination structure allows pursue goals''). 8 On hand, clear inevitably must, disorder. 2063 (""[A]s practical matter, there substantial elections fair honest some sort order, chaos, accompany democratic process''') (quoting 714 (1974)); 217, 549-550 (The Constitution grants "broad power prescribe "Time, Places Manner holding Elections Senators Representatives,' Art. I, §4, cl. 1, matched control over process offices''). 9 we ""character magnitude''' 2063-2064 789, 1570, 547 (1983)). plaintiffs' ""important interests''' ""reasonable, restrictions.''' Anderson, 788, 1569-1570); Norman, 704-706 (requiring "corresponding sufficiently limitation''). 1279 [N]o litmus-paper test separat[es] restrictions invidious self-executing substitute hard judgments made''). 10 claim uncontroversial, goes. See, Cousins Wigoda, 419 477, 95 541, 42 595 (1975) (Party, State, decide delegates convention). is, someone else, "standard bearer.'' follow, though, absolutely entitled A ineligible office,8 unwilling serve, or, here, association 440, n. 10, 2067 ("It seems us limiting choice complied requirements prototypical example that, while affects vote, eminently reasonable''); 792, 12, 1571-1572, 12 ("Although disaffiliation provision preclude supporting remain free promote satisfy requirements''); id., 793, 15, 1572, 15. 11 relies supra. struck down prohibited endorsing primaries regulated affairs structure. And held Connecticut's closed-primary statute, registered members, interfered "the group whom invite participate basic function selecting candidates.'' 215-216, 549 (internal citations involved core activities, not. ban, applies alike, simply precludes try convince Party's, DFL's, Swamp, F.2d, 385 [A] nominate can candidate''). Whether wants endorse who, up "keep developing consensual alliances thus broadening F.3d, 199. was, held, " [h]istory shows played electoral where multiple legal, meaningful influence banned.'' Appeals, forces "no-win choice'' between voting "candidates realistic chance winning, defect[ing] vot[ing] does, declin[ing] all.'' 13 precluded organizing. Cf. 289, 705-706 (statute "foreclose[d] development lacking resources run statewide campaign''). Nor excluded citizens, process. 792-793, 1571-1572 (filing deadline "places identifiable segment Ohio's independent-minded voters''); (1972) (striking Texas statute requiring pay filing fees condition placed primary-election ballots). remains likes, ally itself others, office, spread message listen. 223, 1020 (California curtailed [f]ree discussion office''); Committee, 2322 (restrictions spending impair "engage direct advocacy''). 14 emphasized belief fusion-based alliances, cannot thrive. predictive self-evident.9 But, importantly, supposed benefits require it. 222, 552-553 (refusing merits closed open primaries). Many features our system-e.g., single-member districts, "first past post'' high costs campaigning-make difficult succeed Burnham Declaration, App. 12-13. requires them proportional-representation financing campaigns. Mobile Bolden, 446 55, 75, 100 1490, 1504, 64 47 (1980) (plurality opinion) ("Whatever appeal opinion's matter theory, law''). 15 "right communicate nominees terms equal offered supporters receive information,'' insists communication "critical source information great majority rely upon "labels' guide.'' Brief 22-23. 16 true prevents using supports addition, shuts off possible avenue because, fusion, wins basis two votes likely know more-if counted separately-about wishes ideals constituency. unpersuaded, contention Ballots 2065-2066; 445, 2069-2070 dissenting). Like able long else's retains latitude ideas campaign, campaign for, he listed 1569-1570 [A]n effective platform issues day''); Illinois Bd. 440 173, 186, 99 983, 991, 59 230 (1979) disseminating ideas''). 17 sum, like. They ruling out individuals both agreed also, forced choose, themselves prefer candidates. conclude rights-though trivial-are severe. 18 imposed "severe'' show 198. disagree; given imposed, bar high. need 705; 1569-1570). elaborate, justifications. 499 (1986) ("Legislatures should respond deficiencies foresight reactively, provided response significantly impinge constitutionally protected rights''). 19 acknowledged confusion overcrowded ballots, preventing party-splintering disruptions being clearly identify winner. Similarly, Circuit, noted "compelling'' preserving process, 386; cf. 387-388 (Fairchild, concurring) (State "maintaining distinct identity parties''). argues here promoting (by reserving limited space opposing candidates), distortions manipulations, discouraging splintering "unrestrained factionalism.'' 41-50. 20 Bullock, 856-857 prevent "frivolous candidacies'') (citing Jenness Fortson, 403 431, 442, 91 1970, 1976, 29 554 (1971)); 231, 1024-1025; 290, 706 (States "misrepresentation''); Rosario Rockefeller, 410 752, 761, 1245, 1251-1252, 36 (1973). contend catchphrases. For example, powerful "sending message'' via would various factions newly-formed "No Taxes,'' "Conserve Our Environment,'' "Stop Crime Now'' parties. response, instruct "Fiscal Responsibility,'' "Healthy Planet,'' "Safe Streets'' 21 putative "fusion'' appeared four lines, maneuvering undermine ballot's purpose responds concern, ironically enough, insisting avoid manipulation adopting demanding ballot-access standards prohibiting nomination. Respondent, 38. stated above, severe, tailor chooses integrity. compromise choices embodied accommodate strategy. §204B.08, (1994) (signature petitions); Rosario, 761-762, 1251-1252 (New York's limitation enrollment overall scheme aimed preservation process). 22 Relatedly, urge permitting undercut regime allowing capitalize popularity order secure 45-46. sign petition based viewed person Thus, §§200.02, (defining "major party'') §204D.13 (describing parties). surely making sure actually supported, merits, statutorily support. 9, 9; 733, 746, 1280-1281, 1286-1287. 23 systems.10 1021-1022; 736, 1282. 1577; Williams Rhodes, 393 23, 89 5, 24 (1968), disagreements. 1022; 553-554. said, States' permits see (American politics been, most organized around since Andrew Jackson), temper destabilizing effects excessive factionalism. Legislature served healthy Rutan Ill., 497 62, 107, 110 2729, 2754, 111 52 (1990) (SCALIA, stabilizing [two-party] obvious''); Davis Bandemer, 478 109, 144-145, 106 2797, 2816-2817, (O'CONNOR, ("There little doubt emergence country contributed enormously sound government''); Branti Finkel, 445 507, 532, 1287, 1301, 63 574 (Powell, ("Broad-based supply essential coherence flexibility scene''). securing perceived unreasonably exclusionary restrictions, Williams, 31-32, 10-11, remove hurdles face arena today. voted immediately affiliation before elections. 1278.11 After surveying relevant caselaw, "ha[d] hesitation sustaining'' party-disaffiliation provisions. 1280-1281. recognized "general ballot,'' discriminate 734, 1281. "State take course has, apparently believes Founding Fathers splintered unrestrained factionalism damage fabric government. Federalist, (Madison). appears obvious one-year furthers 1282; Lippitt Cipollone, 404 1032, 729, 30 725 (affirming, district-court decision upholding banning party-primary last years).12 25 relevant. There, Hawaii's write-in infringed citizens' holding, rejected petitioner's argument "deprive[d] him opportunity cast emphasizing "we repeatedly politically neutral effect channeling expressive activit[ies] polls.'' 437-438, 2066. 26 reading dealing "sore-loser candidates,'' dissent, view, fails appreciate case's teaching. Post, __ (STEVENS, issue leading nearly restrictive; say nothing previous would-be California's field thousands; handful freely choose limited. worth candidacies, named twice. 27 stability.13 unconstitutionally express well increases, carry day legislatures. approximately 40 allow 28 ordered. GINSBURG joins, SOUTER joins II, dissenting. (Party), April, qualified House 65A. With Dawkins's consent, my candidate's despite fact Court's conclusion rests three dubious premises: (1) choice; (2) serves factionalism; (3) event, justifies imposition case. disagree each premises. 32 unquestionably public. Both advise highest respect. 33 statutes place recital inflict ante, __-__, minimize severity impose. second diminish significance restriction denies first point publicize provide adequate conveyed every when 34 point, limits range nominate, therefore quite small. number removed reach determinative factor. leaves eligible except ""standard preferences.''' 1021, (1989). 35 perhaps expend re sources members' views. what thereby, attract support.1 Political "exist shared beliefs,'' "in context known effective, versa.'' Comm'n, 2322, (Kennedy, 821, 1586-1587, (1983) (Rehnquist, ("Political have, least hope continuing existence, representing philosophies. Each philosophy election''). that-instead second-choice candidate-the altogether, publicly precisely group.2 "to listen,'' __, Given available less-than-universal messages apparent will, manner, much smaller audience composed read booth. 37 rejects unimportant views, relying 2069-2070, (1992), casting, counting, recording forum expression.'' voter's expressing disapproval single finance mechanism tabulating votes. principally sentiment casting Indeed, long-recognized preferences,''' inescapably right. "To labels shorthand designation identification inform exercise franchise.'' 220, 551-552, 38 case, presumably cases, kind impact broader. Popular nation-wide recognition. Fiorello LaGuardia, Earl Warren, Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt, come readily mind whose reputations careers enhanced Note, Associational Rights Minor Parties, Colum. L.Rev. 683, 683 (1995). would, intolerable association. statutory clutter manipulation, competition, minimizing None rationales failed explain believe abridges freedoms shoulder correspondingly heavy justification survive judicial scrutiny. accepting majority's weighty, bear plausible relationship places 793-794, 1572-1573. Although today suggests justifications evidence validity, previously bare assertion requirement. 1021-1022 (rejecting endorsement "never adequately explain[ed] interest''); 1570 (evaluating examine plaintiff's rights''); 704-706, ("corresponding interest'' limitation'').3 41 describes imaginative theoretical result concern meritless underestimates intelligence typical voter.4 once [a] enhancing citizenry wise decisions restricting flow skepticism.'' 228, 1023; 221, 552; 798, 1574-75. accepted majority, farfetched. possibility begin dozens detailed, titles sole titles, entirely hypothetical. dismisses out-of-hand risk type crowding averted reasonably stringent creation Ante, __-__. fact, merely illustrates idea kinds-but kind-of abilities small If achieve legal reason Amendment. "The undoubted preliminary showing qualify wasteful confusing encumber frivolous 788-789, 9. (1971). established achieving status, forbidding putting chosen frustrates rights.5 43 promotes raiding. 1021-1022. convincingly articulated fears. Unlike (1974), sore-loser defecting disaffected opposition newly formed modicum formation numerous coalitions, division dissension "splintered factionalism,'' 1293. 44 encourages treats "candidates'' fungible goods, ignoring reference above-mentioned rationales. turn, therefore, holding-the III 45 Before addressing note impermissible rationale. argue briefs indeed, pressed oral expressly Tr. Oral Arg. 26. opinions explicit willingness put forward (the "identify evaluate precise rule''); id. 817, 1584-1585 (state ""tied legitimate purpose,''') 762, 1252, (1973)); 46 Even laws, sufficient ban. States, all, surprising, growth undeniably law. intended disadvantage against, of, constitutionality.6 jurisprudence area reflects certain tension: incidental interest, other, specifically give old, advantage struggling existence,'' 31, (1968).7 Between boundaries, "no separating made.'' 1279. 48 Nothing districts winner-take-all arrangements. elements different respects here. method hamper third-party impinges parties; choice, rally relatively likelihood ultimate success deprive try. Second, establishment correlates Systems proportional representation, tend toward fragile coalitions legislative effectiveness. risks extremely attenuated.8 Of course, ardently build greater realize necessarily "wasted'' vote. Eventually, strength that-were inclined-it successfully endorsed coalition-building made presence legislators. scenario speculative best.9 49 respects, marriage virtues challenge entrenched viewpoints10 provides. threaten divide legislature factionalism, principal proponents to. viewpoints represented platforms indicate that-in addition views-he responsive demonstrated demonstrate support-on 50 system-and components-is product traditions, constitute parties.11 demeans assume preserve power.12 central theme entire electorate, includes benefit robust governmental policies ""is freedoms.''' 1577. 51 legislation otherwise discriminates Accordingly, respectfully dissent. 53 join parts STEVENS's agreeing none advanced suffices petitioners' agree set paragraph Part III, assert system'' statutes, system''). Actually, statement "important fusion,'' 40, contains whatsoever "two-party system,'' "political stability'' generally. 40-50. 54 To sure, intention "party splintering,'' 46-50, separable abstract desire stability.1 comprehensive concerns; dangers posed calls "major-party 47, said "turn[ing] into venting squabbles,'' ibid., reducing thinly disguised ballot-issue campaign,'' 49. Nowhere intimate avert cause hasten demise circumstances, neither "splintering,'' tentative argument, fairly assimilated posited cases consideration rule,'' (1983),2 judge raised defense unconstitutional. 55 am, go further distance considering rejecting "preservation us, discount forceful one. There considerable consensus loyalty among declined decades, W. Crotty, Parties Decline 26-34 (2d ed.1984); Jensen, Last System: Decay Consensus, 1932-1980, Evolution Electoral 219-225, (P. Kleppner et al. eds.1981), decreased considerably, Cutler, Government Constitution, U. Penn. (1987); Sundquist, Capacity Govern, Future Parties: Challenge Governance 42-69 (J. Fleishman ed.1982). wake studies, unreasonable infer jeopardy. Lowi, N.Y. Times Aug. 1992, Magazine, p. [H]istorians undoubtably focus 1992 beginning end America's 56 Surely "have systems,'' capable governing effectively. shown disappearance poses threat scheme, predicate recognizing constitutionality action presented Right now, attempted leave day. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, L.Ed. Fusion,'' called "cross-filing'' "multiple-party nomination,'' parties.'' Ballot'': 288 (1980); 197-198 1996) (Fusion 1944 merger Farmer-Labor party'' §200.02, 7(a) (major won five percent elections). provides: seeks partisan nonpartisan shall petition, '' §204B.04, 2. [a]n sought candidate: Has file ensuing election.'' —§204B.06, 1(b). "minor instead signatures 500 total county whichever less. —§§204B.03, 204B.07-204B.08. Act Apr. 13, 1901, ch. 312, 1902 Minn. Laws 524. Day, 178, 182, 102 N.W. 209, 211 (1904), title enacting bill reflect bill's content. reenacted 1905. 1905 6, §176, 27, 31. revised code, fusion-related 1981. 14, 1981, 29, §6, 1981 73. —("Practice [multiple-party nomination] 20th century owes chiefly legislatures outlawed practice''); [M]ultiple today, either indirectly, forty states Columbia ''); Cobble Siskind, Fusion: Multiple Nomination (1993) (summarizing laws). Elec. Law §§6-120, 6-146(1) (McKinney 1978 Supp.1996). Since 1936, relegalized York, several Liberal, Conservative, Labor, Life active influential York 15-16; supra 3-4. §204B.06, subd 1(c) (candidates years age assuming maintained residence district seek days election). Second World Wars, radical, agrarian, labor-oriented thrived, Midwest. R. Vallely, Radicalism One displaced Republicans' opponent 1930's. historian noted: governorship occasions, Senate twenty-five campaigns Never strongest 1936 Farmer-Laborites dominated independence bold anticapitalist rhetoric platforms.'' J. Haynes, Dubious Alliance (1984). successes Deal programs ideology, gradual movement government decline. generally, supra; M. Gieske, Farmer-Laborism: Third-Party Alternative (1979). much-weakened merged forming 1944. 156. dissents "what [our] post, (Stevens, dissenting), defend "expressly rejected'' ibid; __-__ (Souter, contended regulations, work "States there, don't close door part[ies].'' 27; 46-47 (discussing factionalism'') 1282). agree. applied "flat disqualification seeking "registered months prior declaration.''' Another papers —'' 1280. dissent experience undermines experiment cross-filing, provides concerns. 1946, Warren cross-filing stifled undermined distinctive B. Hyink, al., 76 (12th ed. 1989) (California's "undermined responsibility cohesiveness''); Mazmanian, Third Presidential (1974) (cross "diminish[ed] work[ed] efforts minority gain recognition hearing arena''). alleged "avoiding confusion.'' [T]his voter''). discussed below, 199-200, 41-44; 34-39, analysis first-choice convey represents, impinging element rights-the 548, relied substantially impermissibly somewhat different. 199 broaden reality dominance frequently makes present elected. aspect effort ways [t]here issued organization carrie s weight newspaper labor union.'' 18, 1023, reality, implicit equation nominate. parade horribles visit allowed fantastical, Conservative Amici Curiae 20-25. diminishes, strengthens, claims. asserts, half counter-example. "allowed specifying affiliation,'' 132-133 (hereinafter Mazmanian), politics, problems suffered position. 41-43; __. "ballot manipulation'' attempt "capitalize ballot.'' What trying choice. falls unequally impinges, very nature, Amendment.'' (1983). think irrelevant passed Nation latter 1800's, characterized "reforms'' squelch opposition's combined force.'' Am. 302-306 exclusive original behind passage, Bolger Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 60, 70-71, 2875, 2882-2883, 77 469 (1983), history indication believed argued early "asserted amounts existing competition,'' 801-802, 1576-1577. assemble logically running. expressed stifle diversity additional contradictory tension rationale reasons legitimately especially justifying relationship. [A]s outlet frustration, creative force conscience, ideological governor keep speeding abyss mindlessness, technique strengthening group's bargaining position future, invented existence regularly enough.'' A. Bickel, Reform Continuity 80 (1971); Rosenstone, Behr, E. Lazarus, America: Citizen Response Major Failure 4-9 value [R]ather jeopardizing invigorate fostering participation, representation politics.'' truly risked successful More led proliferation destruction institutions.'' Mazmanian 69; 1982 Term-Independent Candidates Minority 97 Harv. 162 ("American depend oligopoly -[H]istorical demonstrate[s] compatible long-term Moreover, eliminating minorities change country''). hesitantly suggest "does generalized preserving, sense, Edenfield Fane, 507 768, 113 1792, 1798-1799, 123 543 (explaining mid-level scrutiny commercial speech apply [u]nlike rational review supplant suppositions'').

Category: 1