Document: 414 U.S. 51 94 S.Ct. 303 38 L.Ed.2d 260 Stanley T. KUSPER, Jr., et al., Appellants,v.Harriet G. PONTIKES. No. 71—1631. Argued Oct. 9, 1973. Decided Nov. 19, Syllabus Appellee, a qualified Chicago voter who voted in February 1971 Republican primary involving nominations for municipal officers, challenges the constitutionality of § 7—43(d) Illinois Election Code, under which she was barred from voting March 1972 Democratic primary. Section prohibits person election political party if he has any other within preceding 23 months, an exception being made is 'political city . only.' Appellants contended, inter alia, that three-judge District Court, held should have abstained because state courts might found statutory applicable to Held: 1. The Court did not err declining abstain making constitutional ruling view Supreme adjudication confining parties entitled nominate only offices and it inapplicable parties. Appellee thus relieved bar 23-month rule. Pp. 53—56. 2. unconstitutionally infringes upon right free association protected by First Fourteenth Amendments 'locking' his pre-existing affiliation substantial period time following participation election, State's legitimate interest preventing 'raiding' cannot justify restraint Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 752, 93 1245, 36 1, distinguished. 56—61. 345 F.Supp. 1104, affirmed. Aldus S. Mitchell, Chicago, Ill., appellants. Ray Jeffrey Cohen, appellee. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 Under prohibited months.1 Harriet Pontikes, 1971;2 wanted vote primary, but doing so this rule.3 She filed complaint declaratory injunctive relief United States Northern Illinois, alleging abridged her freedom associate with choice depriving opportunity A court convened,4 held, one judge dissenting, rule unconstitutional. 1104.5 We noted probable judiction appeal judgment. 411 915, 1540, 306.6 2 * At outset, we are met appellants'7 argument adjudicating They base portion provides that: 3 '(P)articipation elector which, provisions 7—2 Article, city, village or incorporated town hereunder make candidates only, no office offices, shall disqualify such participating primaries ..' Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 46, 7—43(d). 4 appellants note Mrs. Pontikes involved mayor, clerk, treasurer Chicago. claim interpret been only,' outside purview 5 As stated Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMullan, 406 498, 509, 92 1749, 1756, 32 257: 6 'Abstention 'judge-made doctrine ., first fashioned 1941 Railroad Commission Pullman Co., 312 496 (61 643, 85 L.Ed. 971), (that) sanctions escape (from immediate decision) narrowly limited 'special circumstances,' Propper Clark, 337 472, 492 (69 1333, 1344, 1480),' Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 248 (88 391, 395, 19 444) (1967), justifying 'the delay expense application abstention inevitably gives rise.' England (Louisiana State Board of) Medical Examiners, 375 411, 418 (84 461, 466, 11 440) (1964).'8 7 paradigm circumstances' appropriate case where challenged statute susceptible construction judiciary would avoid modify necessity reaching federal question. 249, 88 396, 444; Harrison NAACP, 360 167, 176—177, 79 1025, 1030, 1152. Abstention circumstances serves minimize federal-state friction, also avoids premature perhaps unnecessary adjudication. Harman Forssenius, 380 528, 534, 1177, 1181, 14 50. But 'contemplates deference be issue law uncertain.' Ibid., S.Ct., at 1182. Where, on hand, fairly concluded underlying interpretation adjudication, amount shirking solemn responsibility 'guard, enforce, protect every granted secured constitution States,' Robb Connolly, 111 624, 637, 544, 551, 28 542. 8 think reading appellants' argument—that considered only'—is foreclosed decision Faherty Comm'rs, Ill.2d 519, 126 N.E.2d 235. That clear kind 'local' scope simply those "purely part(ies)"—those entitled, only. Id., 524, N.E.2d, 238.9 9 Since both are, course, congressional, state, county as well, they were definition 'city' It follows then, despite fact appellee still clearly primary.10 wholly justified deciding validity rule, now turn. II 10 There can longer doubt others common advancement beliefs ideas form 'orderly group activity' Amendments. NAACP Button, 371 415, 430, 8o 328, 336, 405; Bates Little Rock, 361 516, 522—523, 80 412, 416, 480; Alabama, 357 449, 460—461, 78 1163, 1171, 1488. one's integral part basic freedom. Williams Rhodes, 393 23, 30, 89 5, 10, 21 24. Cf. Robel, 258, 419, 508. To sure, administration electoral process matter Constitution largely entrusts States.11 But, exercising their powers supervision over elections setting qualifications voters, may infringe protections. See, e.g., Dunn Blumstein, 405 330, 995, 31 274; Kramer Union School District, 395 621, 1886, 583; Carrington Rash, 89, 775, 13 675. supra, unduly restrictive laws impinge run afoul U.S., 10. And see id., 35 41, 12—15 (Douglas, J., concurring); 41—48, 15—19 (Harlan, concurring). 12 little substantially restricts voter's change affiliation. One wishes registration must wait almost two years before will given effect. Moreover, forced forgo occurring hiatus. effect 'lock' into each succeeding extends confinement. does not, deprive appellee's position all opportunities choice. neither attempts compel disclosure membership lists Rock Alabama work total restriction organization's members other. Rather, cases statutes attack constituted 'substantial restraint'12 'significant interference'13 exercise constitutionally association. same true While absolutely preclude associating party, party's election. our system, function select public offered voters general elections. prime objective most themselves particular surely gain voice selection process. By during period, deprived choosing candidates, ability effectively III 15 past decisions clear, significant encroachment associational mere showing interest. 417; 463, 1172. For even when pursuing interest, choose means unnecessarily restrict liberty. 343, 1003. 'Precision regulation touchstone area closely touching precious freedoms.' 438, 83 340. If open less drastic way satisfying its interests, legislative scheme broadly stifles fundamental personal liberties. Shelton Tucker, 364 479, 488, 81 247, 252, 231. 16 here urge purpose 'raiding'—the practice whereby sympathy another's order distort primary's results. said recognized inhibiting 'raiding,' upheld legislation restricting parties, enacted serving 17 true, infirmity New York delayed-enrollment statute14 review Rosario. required enroll least 30 days eligible next prevented approximately months between deadline election.15 seeking curtail since affect integrity 761, 1251. follow procedures pass muster Amendment, Code differs number important respects. 18 prevent choice; merely imposed limit enrollment. law, different year precluded so; had meet requirement declaring allegiance consequence unwanted next; confinement result elector's voluntary failure take timely measures enroll. 757—759, 1249. therefore 'from choice.' 762, 1252. 758 n. 8, 1250. difference obvious. Unlike petitioners Rosario, whose disenfranchisement caused own enroll, there action could taken herself primary.16 unlike York, 'locks' next, break years. 20 In words, while delayedenrollment choice, just that. device chosen goal. conspicuously Far supporting legislation, Court's suggests asserted attained 'less means,' do burden activity. conclude, therefore, judgment accordingly 22 Affirmed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs result. 24 BLACKMUN, dissenting. 25 deprivation claims suffered, today enshrouds mantle unconstitutionality, restrained relatively minor context desire undo established Apart meager restraint, fully varying is, been, completely chooses affiliated 26 important, I think—and deserving repeated emphasis very franchise triggered solely decision. This so, conclusion seems me dilute Amendment concept vitality long run, necessarily suffer strained artificial applications kind. lightly brushes association, these automatically invalidation. Prior require invalidity where, here, intrusion minor. See McDonald 394 802, 1404, 739 (1969); (1973). 27 nearly relied appellee, faced situations disqualification amounted direct dilution suffered discrete class impediment, imposed, involuntary condition directly tied franchise. example, Harper Virginia Elections, 383 663, 86 1079, 169 (1966) (poll tax wealth); Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 506 (1964) (location); Cipriano City Houma, 701, 1897, 647 (1969) (property ownership); 675 (1965) (military status). 274 (1972) (residence). impairment affected class, without action, participate level markedly significant. What us complex structure designed ballot box system. one. 1251; 345, 1004; Bullock Carter, 134, 145, 849, 857, (1972). And, me, employed reasonably related fulfillment extent organized raiding disrupt, unfortunate results, orderly balloting perhaps, reasonable differences opinion. Indeed, joined precise degree impact recent Regardless factual version credited, legitimacy unquestioned. With respect like regimentation extensive scale legendary, my view, move cautiously tempted terms assuming better able achieve admittedly laudable lawful purpose. 29 resorting standard rigid strict review, indulging what fear departure appropriately deferential approach places itself failing give elbow room deserve possess formulate solutions many problems confronting them associated preservation Phoenix Kolodziejski, 399 204, 90 1990, 523 (1970); Burns Fortson, 686, 687, 1209, 1210, 633 (1973) (concurring opinion). Surely, some point, protecting entire system outweighs incidental happens fall few uniquely situated citizens. Legislature determined precluding successive annual desirable necessary preserve otherwise vulnerable structure. 1252, applied 'particularized purpose' similarly directed statute. REHNQUIST points out dissent, post, 68, resulting provision potentially great as, greater than, here. one, together, incongruous Not actual than more rational relation provision. specified arbitrary prior assumed switching purposes occur. contrast, chose employ flat nature speculative arbitrary; instead, event, namely, another last Seemingly, limitation extend back beyond When annually, amounts one-year limitation, drawn expected rather designated period. tying cut-off succeed crossovers, highly unlikely regulars ever instructed subvert year. observes side creating per se exclusion voters. factor, apparently, seek distinguish occasioned impact, often diligent. This, indeed, situation provision, affects switchers. amenable raiding. agree marginal exist transforming 'legitimate limitation,' unconstitutional denial incongruity underscores believe potential mischief results easy all-too-ready resort strict-scrutiny line unconstitutionality somewhere. draw short done REHNQUIST, whom BLACKMUN joins, 33 decides disqualifying imposes impermissible voters' distinguishes (1973), decided Term. find difficult 34 7—43 register elections; goes set exceptions entitlement, including persons disqualified refuse declare affiliation.1 7—44 requires judges polling place; further that, challenged, establish vote.2 45 supply affidavit, statutorily prescribed form, 7—43. affidavit states, affiant forbidden elections, enrolled member advance instead declaration place. surprisingly York. makes sit effectuate switch qualify primaries. Illinois' York's, sufficiently prescient diligent Of whether underwent loyalty time, steps York's On lesser previously unaffiliated York's. has, whatever reason, failed months. Such foresee eight practical matter, swear participated unless challenged. respects tailored Voters recently demonstrated likely engage 'raiding.' violations serious danger perceived. 37 Both struck down instances sought restrictions promoting perfectly accomplish result, conclude significantly Term provides, pertinent part: 'No primary: '(d) Article calendar month held: Provided, party: provided, purely reason having seeks held.' involved, Governor, Senator, Representative, legislators, delegates National Convention Party. U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284. 7—43(a) 7—44, prerequisite holding, unanimous, appealed. consolidated similar brought against clerk County, Illinois. defendant appealed Commissioners, responsible administering city. 6—21 seq. Bracketed material original. defines term party' states various types nominations. 7—2, garners 5% cast statewide defined State,' Similarly, polls (a) city,' elective positions 7—43(d), only' nominations; polled state-wide Obviously, voted, fit description. argue, plaintiff 235, wished after year, primary; thus, precisely converse however, distinction difference. holding primaries, citywide 'within supra. Thus, Art. I, 2; II, office, Congress power qualifications. Oregon 400 112, 91 260, 272. 462, 523, 480. N.Y. Law 186, McKinney's Consol.Laws, 100. presidential June; years, cutoff date 186 occurs about 760, 1251, could, forgoing course 1971, obviated deficiencies inherent law. 7—43, provides: 'Every resided precinct therein citizen above age 'The regulations primaries: '(a) Unless declares affiliations Article; '(b) Who signed petition nomination candidate affiliate, '(c) nominating papers independent (in primary) held. '(e) cities, villages towns board commissioners registered provided Act '(f) No 4, Act, Articles entitle him reference 'Any desiring name, residence judges, thereupon announce distinct tone voice, loud heard article Certificate Registered Voter official poll record made. himself affiliated, endorse initials manner seen properly folded. receive until hereinafter provided. refuses allowed primary.'

Category: 1