Document: 128 S. Ct. 1184 (2008) WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE, Petitioner, v. REPUBLICAN PARTY et al. Washington, al., Petitioners, Washington State Republican Party, Nos. 06-713, 06-730. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 1, 2007. Decided March 18, 2008. *1187 Robert M. McKenna, for petitioners. Thomas Fitzgerald Ahearne, Counsel Record, Kathryn Carder, Emanuel Jacobowitz, Ramsey Ramerman, Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, WA, Petitioner. Richard Shepard, Shepard Law Office, P.L.L.C., Tacoma, Respondent Libertarian Party Washington. John J. White, Jr., Kevin B. Hansen, Livengood, & Alskog, Kirkland, Respondents Christopher Vance, Bertabelle Hubka, Steve Neighbors, Brent Boger, Marcy Collins, Michael Young, Diane Tebelius, and Mike Gaston. David T. McDonald, P. Krill, Matthew Segal, Jay Carlson, Alex Wagner, Kirkpatrick Lockhart, Preston Gates Ellis LLP, Democratic Central Committee. Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion Court. In 2004, voters in passed an initiative changing State's primary election system. The People's Choice Initiative or 872 (I-872), provides that candidates office shall be identified on ballot by their self-designated "party preference"; may vote any candidate; top two votegetters each office, regardless party preference, advance to general election. Appeals Ninth Circuit held I-872 facially invalid as imposing unconstitutional burden state political parties' First Amendment rights. Because does not its face impose a severe associational rights, because respondents' arguments contrary rest factual assumptions about voter confusion can evaluated only context as-applied challenge, we reverse. I For most past century, selected nominees local offices using blanket primary.[1]*1188 From 1935 until 2003, used placed from all parties one allowed select candidate party. See Wash. Laws, ch. §§ 1-5, pp. 60-64. Under this system, who won plurality votes within major became party's nominee 2003 § 919, p. 775. California nearly identical own elections our decision Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 120 2402, 147 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2000). four challenged California's primary, arguing it unconstitutionally burdened rights forcing them associate with did share beliefs. We agreed struck down inconsistent Amendment. so doing, emphasized importance nomination process "`the crucial juncture at which appeal common principles translated into concerted action, hence power community.' " Id., 575, 2402 (quoting Tashjian Conn., 479 208, 216, 107 544, 93 514 (1986)). observed right exclude is central freedom association, never "more important than selecting nominee." U.S., 2402. concluded, severely association forced allow nonmembers participate nominees. That retained endorse preferred render less severe, "[t]here simply no substitute candidates." 581, subjected strict scrutiny, carefully examining interests offered support rejected illegitimate three asserted interests: "producing elected officials better represent electorate," "expanding debate beyond scope partisan concerns," ensuring "the effective vote" allowing majority "`safe'" districts. 582-584, concluded remaining interestspromoting fairness, affording greater choice, increasing participation, protecting privacywere compelling facts case. Even if they were, was narrowly tailored further those nonpartisan affiliation, would accomplish without burdening 585-586, had "all characteristics save constitutionally one: Primary [were] choosing Ibid. After *1189 Washington's "materially indistinguishable scheme." Reed, 343 F.3d 1198, 1203 (2003). Grange[2] promptly proposed replacement.[3] It 60% December 2004. I-872, "partisan offices"[4] are conducted stages: To must file "declaration candidacy" form, he declares his "major minor independent status." Rev.Code 29A.24.030 (Supp.2005). Each preference (or status) turn designated ballot. A cannot prevent unaffiliated with, even repugnant to, designating preference. Admin. Code 434-215-015 (2005). election, "any listed ballot, voter." 434-262-012. highest second-highest totals preferences. Thus, pit same against another.[5] candidate's changed between elections. 434-230-040. Immediately after enacted regulations implement filed suit number county auditors challenging law face. contended new system violates usurping nominate endorse. Committee joined plaintiffs. Grange defendant, substituted defendant. States District Western granted *1190 motions summary judgment enjoined implementation I-872. Logan, 377 F. Supp. 907, 932 affirmed. 460 1108, 1125 (C.A.9 2006). burdens party-preference designation creates risk winners will perceived produces "impression associatio[n]" when associate, wish associated, candidate. 1119. noted "constitutionally significant distinction ballots other vehicles expression," reasoning particularly acute include labels such typically designate candidates' views issues public concern. 1121. And determined underlying were sufficiently justify association. Concluding provisions providing severable, court entirety. certiorari, 549 ___, 127 1373, 167 158 (2007), determine whether face, II object actual but facial challenge. Salerno, 481 739, 2095, 95 697 (1987), plaintiff succeed challenge "establish[ing] set circumstances exists under Act valid," i.e., applications. 745, 2095. While some Members have criticized Salerno formulation, agree fail where statute has "`plainly legitimate sweep.'" Glucksberg, 521 702, 739-740, n. 7, 117 2258, 138 772 (1997) (STEVENS, J., concurring judgments). survives either standard, explain below.[6] determining invalid, careful go statute's requirements speculate "hypothetical" "imaginary" cases. Raines, 362 17, 22, 80 519, 4 524 (1960) ("The delicate pronouncing Congress exercised reference hypothetical cases thus imagined"). opportunity courts occasion construe disputes arising electoral context, accord limiting construction avoid constitutional questions. Cf. Yazoo *1191 Mississippi Valley R. Co. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 217, 220, 33 40, 57 193 (1912) ("How apply [a statute] cases, words treated more restrained, how far parts sustained others matters upon need now"). Exercising judicial restraint "frees unnecessary pronouncement issues, also premature interpretations statutes areas application might cloudy." supra, 519. Facial challenges disfavored several reasons. Claims invalidity often speculation. As consequence, raise "premature interpretation basis factually barebones records." Sabri States, 541 600, 609, 124 1941, 891 (2004) (internal quotation marks brackets omitted). run fundamental principle should neither "`anticipate question necessity deciding it'" nor "`formulate rule broader required precise applied.'" Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 347, 56 466, 688 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring) Liverpool, New York Philadelphia S.S. Commissioners Emigration, 113 33, 39, 5 352, 28 899 (1885)). Finally, threaten short circuit democratic preventing laws embodying people being implemented manner consistent Constitution. keep mind "`[a] ruling unconstitutionality frustrates intent representatives people.'" Ayotte Planned Parenthood Northern Eng., 546 320, 329, 126 961, 163 812 (2006) Regan Time, Inc., 468 641, 652, 104 3262, 82 487 (1984) (plurality opinion)). these view merits possess "`broad prescribe "Times, Places Manner holding Elections Senators Representatives," Art. I, 4, cl. matched control over offices.' Clingman Beaver, 544 586, 125 2029, 161 920 (2005) Tashjian, 544); Timmons Twin Cities Area 520 351, 358, 1364, 137 589 (same). This absolute, "subject limitation [it] way . specific Constitution." Williams Rhodes, 393 23, 29, 89 5, 21 24 (1968). particular, "`responsibility observe limits established citizens,'" including Eu San Francisco County Comm., 489 214, 222, 109 1013, 103 271 (1989) 544). Election subject uphold "narrowly serve interest." Clingman, 2029; see 31, ("`only interest regulation *1192 regulate freedoms'" NAACP Button, 371 415, 438, 83 328, 9 405 (1963))). If imposes modest burdens, however, then regulatory generally sufficient reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions" procedures. Anderson Celebrezze, 780, 788, 1564, 75 547 (1983). "Accordingly, repeatedly upheld politically neutral effect channeling expressive activity polls." Burdick Takushi, 504 428, 112 2059, 119 245 (1992). do dispute principles; rather, disagree disagreement begins Jones. Petitioners argue alternative Jones suggested constitutional. proceed party, restrictive candidates. (The "has nominee"). correct assumed described But dispositive here indicates effect, chooses now squarely before us. crucial" infirmity doomed primary: allows choose nominee. claim progress become de facto prefer, thereby violating standard-bearers, Timmons, 359, altering messages. They rely statement reaffirming special place reserves for, protection accords, `select[s] standard bearer best represents ideologies preferences.'" Eu, 224, 1013). flaw argument that, unlike not, terms, essence nominationthe choice representativedoes occur refers treat such. contrary, specifically provide "does serves winnow final list election." Whether outside state-run irrelevant. fact, whatever mechanism *1193 repealed prior governing nominations.[7] counter actually nominees, nevertheless assume parties. brings us heart caseand fatal argument. At bottom, objection confused partypreference designations. Respondents' largely variations theme. parties, least approve of, them. This, say, compels endorse, alters messages convey, forces engage counterspeech disassociate themselves positions issues. reject contentions reason: depend, requirement possibility meaning designation. assertion misinterpret sheer "depends belief `misled' labels. `[o]ur reflect faith ability individual inform campaign issues.'" Anderson, 797, 1564). There presume well-informed electorate interpret mean chosen representative associates approves Club Assn., Inc. City York, 13-14, 108 2225, 101 1 (1988) (rejecting regulating club membership noting "[w]e could hardly hold otherwise record us, contains evidence covered [l]aw"). strikes especially true here, given themselves, rather representatives, Of course, possible designations reflecting endorsement involve strike based mere confusion. Yazoo, 219, 40 ("[T]his deal case hand imaginary ones"); Pullman Knott, 235 26, 35 2, 59 105 (1914) (A "is upset unreal possibilities, good are"). respondents brought *1194 evidentiary assess assertions confused. 375-376, 1364 dissenting) judgments "imaginative theoretical sources confusion" "entirely hypothetical" outcomes). Indeed, been implemented, indicating displayed. stands reason depend part form abbreviations like "`D'" "`R,'" "`Dem.'" "`Rep.'" names candidates, instead "clearly particular `prefers' party." F.3d, 1121, 20. thought clear too little eliminate stop there. long speculating ballotand challengewe must, fairness deference executive charged implementing it, ask conceivably printed widespread threat Ayotte, 961 (noting nullify necessary frustrating duly representatives); Ward Rock Against Racism, 491 781, 795-796, 2746, 661 ("`[I]n evaluating law, federal consider enforcement agency proffered.'" Hoffman Estates Flipside, Estates, 455 489, 494, 102 1186, 71 (1982))). difficult conceive example, petitioners propose prominent disclaimers explaining reflects self-designation official suggest note emphasizes personal determination acceptance candidate, "my Party." Additionally, decide educate through advertising explanatory materials mailed along ballots.[8] satisfied there variety ways real specter confusion, association[9] compelled speech[10] fall flat. *1195 Our conclusion implementations Schall Martin, 467 253, 264, 2403, 81 207 (a fails "at some" applications exist). rests absence evidence, misled. ("[A]n empirically debatable assumption thin reed credible distinction" permissible impermissible association). await On B respondents, assert interest. 593, 2029 ("When provision places heavy `a usually enough restrictions'" 1364)). relevant information easily sustain 796, 1564 ("There legitimacy fostering informed educated expressions popular election").[11] III invalidate popularly carried out. enacted, obtained permanent injunction require *1196 extraordinary precipitous nullification people. compel presuming confuse voters, accordingly reversed. ordered. Chief ROBERTS, whom ALITO joins, concurring. SCALIA's concern permitting identify ballotregardless endorsed membermay effectively force accept want, amounting violation think, perceive associated inquiry. forced-association indicate much. Boy Scouts America Dale, 640, 653, 2446, 554 (2000), said Dale's presence "force organization send message [to] world" approved homosexuality. words, accepting Dale lead outsiders believe homosexual conduct. Largely reason, entitled Dale. 659, 2446. Similarly, Hurley Irish-American Gay, Lesbian Bisexual Group Boston, 515 557, 115 2338, 132 (1995), organizers Boston's St. Patrick's Day Parade pro-gay float float's parade create impression float-sponsors' message. id., 575-577, 2338. Voter perceptions matter, tied together, hard adversely implicated. Rumsfeld Forum Academic Institutional Rights, 47, 65, 1297, 164 156 schools' military recruiters campus reasonable person "law schools agree[d] speech recruiters"). all, individuals frequently favor party; preferences, more, What makes different, SCALIA explains, express preferences: post, 1199 (dissenting opinion) role state-printed plays elections"). what "special" precisely impressions. Cook Gralike, 531 510, 532, 121 1029, 149 44 (2001) (Rehnquist, C. judgment) ("[T]he last thing sees choice"); 375 399, 402, 84 454, 11 430 (1964) ("[D]irecting citizen's attention single consideration race decisively influence citizen cast racial lines"). use *1197 regime, idea look like. emphasize content pertinent respect yet determined. Reply Brief 2-4, 7-13. designed members claimed "prefer," likely pass muster. say present impossible design Assuming designed, regard "party" someone saying "I Campbell's soup" understood Campbell's. Voters understand speak behalf approval. hand, merely lists next names, clearly convey necessarily survive complains "[i]t know respond" mistaken views, 1200 opinion), soldiers nonetheless. He believes associated. take point "endorsement" alter message, 1200-1201 opinion). saying, prefer party," not. Normally, protects responsive own. different course controls considered forum. 363, (ballots "forums expression"). Neither dictates conveyed case, saysboth prefer. Nothing my analysis requires produce studies regarding score, wait says unconstitutional. Still, history suggests interested devising meet requirements. 1201 certainty created Accordingly, fail, join Court's opinion. SCALIA, KENNEDY dissenting. electorate's perception beliefs colored *1198 defining act selection advocacy conferring him endorsement. When causes fully (if all) undermines both vital aspects self-identified supporter color self-identification space repudiation identification impairs bearer. demonstrated interestindeed, seems me plausible reduce effectiveness partiesI find begin agree. undercut freedoms Term Limits, Thornton, 779, 833-834, 1842, 131 881 (1995). regulates process, `character magnitude'" imposed extent concerns make necessary." (1997). Regulations Among persons refrain associating reject. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 107, 122, 1010, 67 (1981). Also included promote "`standard (1989). whose group accept, organization's undermined; embrace, very tolerate, linked therefore held, openly gay scoutmaster. scoutmaster's "would, least, youth world, accepts conduct behavior." mission simply, primarily, persuade views. Parties seek principally See, e.g., (1986); Storer Brown, 415 724, 94 1274, 39 714 (1974); Hershey Beck, Politics 13 (10th ed.2003). achieved large marking seal devote substantial resources making trusted symbols certain approaches governance. *1199 App. 239 (Declaration Chair Paul Berendt); Aldrich, Why Parties? 48-49 encourage carry name. Parties' efforts trademark, speak, successful name, commentator, resource possesses." Cain, Autonomy Two-Party Electoral Competition, U. Pa. L.Rev. 793, 804 (2001). indeed voters. 804, 34; Rahn, Role Partisan Stereotypes Information Processing About Political Candidates, 37 Am. Pol. Sci. 472 (1993); Klein Baum, Ballot Voting Decisions Judicial Elections, 54 Research Q. 709 like, favor, entirely free decline running primaries left devices publicizing done machinery available building. Recognizing draw giving imprimatur, seeks drawing goodwill developed, while genuine choice. off building; instrument building impeded, unrebutted associations itself approve. These decided taking account comes play stage processthe instant cast." (1964). document guaranteed see, choice," judgment). elevate issue prominence sets forth positions. 525-526, 1029 (opinion Court). "blanket primary" citizens remained another denounce carrying name Forced fatal. much fact shown billed statements *1200 "preference." ante, 1193-1195. sure, display arguably employing scoutmaster lending ballot-endorsement thrusting unwelcome, self-proclaimed amply destructive An individual's shapes voter's for. why asked (and regularly agree) repudiate regarded extremists. impossible. casting vote, "no means replying" "would equally Cook, Not distorted, hijacked. acquisition balloteven self-identificationis garnering trust D's" R's" esthetic reasons; link unwilling unable revulsion) philosophy. harms matter implemented. circumstances" undermined declare forbidden so. THE CHIEF JUSTICE "`like[s] soup'" harm Campbell Soup Company. 1188 (concurring respond. fundamentally, comparison "preference" soup. robust belongs groups "engage[d] `expressive association,'" 648, Company exist "there minimal commercial association," Roberts Jaycees, 634, 3244, 462 (O'Connor, Second, assuredly JUSICE's `prefer.'" Ante, 1188. quite satisfy "associated with" expressed *1201 himself expression preference whole purpose expressed. approval," ibid., none relies misperception, misperception member Avoiding misperceptions enough. Is notorious despised racist approval? Surely His distorts image expresses deprive boost reputation wishes confer claims determined," ibid. disagree. pressed, Attorney General assured oral disavows him. (Of enable legislation impair.) finally, earlier awareness character 1188, example forget that. terms soup, encourages Oscar Grouch (Sesame Street's famed bad-taste resident garbage can) every sale, barring soup company disavowing endorsement, locations. Reserving critical communications forum potentially distasteful speaker entity "preferred"; privileged connection company's association's bearer, treads protected JUSTICE's concurrence wait-and-see approach grounds evident affect suggestion, incumbent adduce "evidence," 1195, affects advocate causes. put perhaps-impossible task. Rather, assessments matter. approach, 1187-1188, establish prove distort 2446 (citing 123-124, 1010). Nor demonstrate contingent *1202 577, 502, incorrectly "nominee" products change study sole voters' elect. Since conclude tailored" "a 1364. submission passes scrutiny. argues rational basis" "providing modicum candidates," No. 06-730, 48-49. identifies well. 1195. "rational demanding tests; test taxed rates businesses. Allied Stores Ohio, Bowers, 358 522, 526-527, 79 437, 3 480 (1959). falls far, establishing requires. tell truth, existence questionable. Allowing displays adherence philosophy "an importantperhaps paramountconsideration choice." 454. so, irrational disclaim self-association, mystery going here. behind except Legislature's dislike bright-colors partisanship, desire blunt noncentrist enactment adopted replacea invalidated 1198 2003).) obvious repeat self-declared electioneering concerning candidateeven communication criticize disavow 42.17.510(1) (2006); 390-18-020 (2007). assume, telling (above things) favors (per impossibile) one; still tailor" protect intrusion *1203 attempt could, permitted general-election sense effort monopoly undermine activities * operation action impairing bears justification. permits appropriate trademarks, distorting justification (to "modicum information") weak undeserving credence. which, replaced, refuse assist, positively impairs, dissent Constitution sabotage. NOTES [1] term person, 576, 6, distinct "open primary," among offices, traditional "closed "only nominee," 570, [2] fraternal, social, civic chartered National 1889. Although originally formed farmers, advocated goals, women's suffrage, rural electrification, water resources, universal telephone service. supported amendment initiatives referendums sponsored 1934 initiative. [3] promoters presented preserve 2003. task judge promoters' similarity, lack thereof, primary; evaluate constitutionality terms. language purposely drafted Jones-type irrelevant successfully [4] "`Partisan office' her declaration candidacy appear conjunction name." 29A.04.110 [5] outcome. 1996 gubernatorial advanced 1114, 8 [6] recognize second type overturned impermissibly overbroad "substantial number" unconstitutional, "`judged relation plainly Ferber, 458 747, 769-771, 3348, 73 1113 (1982) Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 601, 615, 2908, 830 (1973)). "`strong medicine'" overbreadth describe instances arguable contested law. 14, (1988). [7] longer unexceptionable: give 362-363, ("We unpersuaded, contention particularized nature candidate"). gain affords "Ballots primarily elect forums expression." [8] counties broad authority mail in-person polling places. 29A.48.010. result, 90% mail. Tr. Oral Arg. 11. [9] (1995) (holding parade's organizer disagrees group's message), (2000) Scouts' violated requiring admit scoutmaster). threatened groups' intended aware [10] Relying Pacific Gas Elec. Public Util. Comm'n Cal., 475 106 903, (1986) utility third-party newsletter billing envelope), clarify inapposite. reproduce another's will; co-opt conduits speech. Facilitation respond amount speak. 64-65, (2006). [11] implications access, trademark finance. access addressed below encompassed certiorari: "Does violate ballot?" Pet. cert. i. finance suitable remand.

Category: 1