Document: 128 S. Ct. 791 (2008) NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., Petitioners, v. Margarita LÓPEZ TORRES al. No. 06-766. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 3, 2007. Decided January 16, 2008. *794 Theodore B. Olson, for Petitioners New York State Board Elections, Andrew J. Rossman, County Democratic Committee, Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Respondents. Todd D. Valentine, Albany, NY, Randy M. Mastro, Jennifer L. Conn, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, York, Matthew McGill, Michael Diamant, Washington, D.C., Douglas Kellner, Neil W. Kelleher, Helena Moses Donohue and Evelyn Aquila. Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin the Republican Thomas C. Goldstein, Amanda R. Johnson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld Steven Pesner, James P. Chou, *795 E. d'Auguste, Vincenzo A. DeLeo, Jamison Diehl, Lockard, Edward Lazarus, Los Angeles, California, Joseph Forstadt, Ernst H. Rosenberger, Burton N. Lipshie, David Sifre, Stroock Lavan, Associations Justices in City Honorable Demarest, J.S.C., Arthur Greig, Committee. Cuomo, Barbara Underwood, Solicitor General, Benjamin Gutman, Deputy Denise Hartman, Assistant Petitioner Attorney General as Statutory Intervenor. Paul Smith, Jenner Block Jeremy Creelan, Elizabeth Valentina, Carletta F. Higginson, Alsdorf, Joshua Block, Adam Morse, Chicago, IL, Burt Neuborne, Deborah Goldberg, Sample Aziz Huq, Gans, Kent Yalowltz, Glynn K. Spelliscy, Brook, Alex Brophy, Yue-Han Chow, Arnold Porter Justice SCALIA delivered opinion Court. The requires that political parties select their nominees at a convention delegates chosen by party members primary election. We consider whether this electoral system violates First Amendment rights prospective candidates. I A is State's trial court general jurisdiction, with an Appellate Division hears appeals from certain lower courts. See N.Y. Const., Art. VI, §§ 7, 8. Under York's current Constitution, divided into 12 judicial districts, see § 6(a); Jud. Law Ann. 140 (West 2005), are elected to 14-year terms each such district, 6(c). Legislature has provided election total 328 fashion. 140-a Supp.2007). Over years, changed method which selected several times. Constitution 1821, IV, all officers, except Peace, were appointed Governor consent Senate. 7 Sources Documents U.S. Constitutions 181, 184 (W. Swindler ed.1978). In 1846, amended its require popular (and also Judges Appeals). Id., 192, 200 (N.Y. Const. 12). early years under regime, allowed choose own *796 selecting candidates who would bear endorsements on general-election ballot. See, e.g., Report Joint Committee Senate Assembly Appointed Investigate Primary Election Laws This Other States, Doc. 26, pp. 195-219 (1910). major opted conventions, same then employed nominate other state offices. Ibid.; Ray, An Introduction Political Parties Practical Politics 94 (1913). 1911, enacted law requiring most did not run statewide) through direct elections. Act Oct. 18, ch. 891, 45(4), 1911 2657, 2682. came be criticized "device capable astute successful manipulation professionals," Editorial, Convention, Times, May 1, 1917, p. 12, candidate 1920 campaigned against it "a fraud" "offered opportunity two things, demagogue man money," Miller Declares Fraud, 23, 1920, 4. 1921 required composed members. 2, 1921, 479, 45(1), 110, 1451, 1454, 1471. retains choosing day. Section 6-106 sets forth basic operation: "Party nominations office justice supreme shall made district convention." Elec. 2007). "party" any organization whose received 50,000 or more votes recent 1-104(3). September "delegate primary," elect 150 assembly districts attend party's located. 121 2003); 6-124, 8-100(1)(a) individual may delegate submitting Elections designating petition signed 500 enrolled residing five percent members, whichever less. 6-136(2)(i), (3). These signatures must gathered within 37-day period preceding filing deadline, approximately months before primary. 6-134(4), 6-158(1). these primaries uncommitted; ballot does specify nominee whom they will support. 7-114. nominating conventions take place one weeks after 6-126, 6-158(5). Each large 6-156. takes November. 8-100(1)(c). appear automatically 7-104(5). They joined independent organizations fail meet vote threshold status; gain access timely petitions (depending district) 3,500 4,000 voters number cast *797 prior election, 6-138, 6-142(2). B Respondent López Torres was 1992 civil Kings Countya limited jurisdiction than Courthaving gained nomination Party She claims soon her leaders began demand she make patronage hires, consistent refusal do so caused local oppose unsuccessful candidacy 1997, 2002, 2003. following year, Torrestogether had failed secure parties, claimed have supported those candidates, branch public-interest called Common Causebrought suit federal responsible administering enforcing law. 3-102, 3-104. contended burdened challengers seeking favored leadership, deprived associate As relevant here, sought declaration rights, injunction mandating establishment Justice. District issued preliminary granting relief requested, pending Legislature's enactment new statutory scheme. 411 Supp. 2d 212, 256 (E.D.N.Y.2006). unanimous panel States Appeals Second Circuit affirmed. 462 F.3d 161 (2006). It held possess right "realistic participate [a party's] process, free burdens both severe unnecessary." 187. violated because quantity recruits obtain convention, id., 197, apparent reality can control delegates, 198-200. court's view, "one-party rule" prevailed constitutional notwithstanding ability get signatures. 193-195, 200. Circuit's holding effectively returned electing existed amendments granted certiorari. 549 ___, 127 1325, 167 Ed. 72 (2007). II limit membership wishes, candidate-selection process view produce best represents platform. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 107, 122, 101 1010, 67 82 (1981); California Jones, 530 567, 574-575, 120 2402, 147 502 (2000). circumscribed, however, when gives role processas done *798 here giving endorsement Then, example, racially discriminatory action become Fifteenth Amendment. 573, 2402. And acquires legitimate governmental interest assuring fairness enabling prescribe what be. 572-573, have, considered "too plain argument" use American Tex. White, 415 767, 781, 1296, 39 744 (1974). That prescriptive power without limits. we invalidated grounds California's blanket primary, reasoning permitted non-party determine bearing standard U.S., 577, Eu San Francisco Central Comm., 489 214, 224, 109 1013, 103 271 (1989); Tashjian Conn., 479 208, 214-217, 107 544, 93 514 (1986). present case, associational issue (if all) only shield sword. Respondents no position rely confers structure internal processes choosing. Indeed, intervened very stages litigation defend weapon wielded plaintiffs join, but degree influence in, party. contend go far enough demandsin fair chance prevailing parties' process. contention finds support our precedents. indeed acknowledged individual's undue state-imposed impediment. Kusper Pontikes, 414 51, 57, 303, 38 260 (1973), Illinois voter wishing change his registration different almost full date. But doubt limitations upon voting. Rosario Rockefeller, 410 752, 1245, 36 1 upheld requirement choice least 30 days previous order next event, respondents claim been excluded voting Moreover, even if extended cover run, requirements (a 500-signature collected during window advance primary) entirely reasonable. Just persons demonstrate significant modicum support" allowing them ballot, lest unmanageable, Jenness Fortson, 403 431, 442, 91 1970, 29 554 (1971), similarly minimum signature excessive. Norman *799 Reed, 279, 295, 112 698, 116 711 (1992) (approving 25,000 signatures, electorate); supra, 783, 1296 about 22,000 signatures). Respondents' real complaint cannot nor follows give realistic nomination. say, inevitably garners slate (delegates uncommitted nominee) unsupported amass himself. thus leadership determines nominees. says nothing widespread leadership. No compels leadership's slateor, matter, way desires. prohibits attending persuade her. Our cases invalidating ballot-access focused themselves, manner actors function requirements. Bullock Carter, 405 134, 92 849, 31 (1972) (Texas statute exorbitant fees); Williams Rhodes, 393 89 5, 21 24 (1968) (Ohio required, inter alia, excessive signatures); Anderson Celebrezze, 460 780, 1564, 75 547 (1983) established unreasonably deadline). Here complain law, voters' delegates') preference choices To sure, described above, set faces "party bosses" party-candidate selection favorable insurgents, primaries. say cry saying demands it. None establishes "fair shot" winning good reason. What constitutes reasonable enough question legislative judgment, accept long too much infringe rights. hardly manageable judgesespecially judges legal system, where traditional practice hint existence, less content, attendant "smoke-filled rooms" domination leaders, accepted "National 1972 generally leaders" determined delegates. Presidential Elections: Process, Policy, Change 14 (H. Schantz ed.1996). Selection never thought unconstitutional, caucuses. ibid. judgment finesses difficulty how shot simply until acts. was, according *800 Circuit, law's default offices otherwise prescribed. propriety mandate, need pass here. Even conceding propriety, there reason believe remain opposed reasons predecessors abolished 86 ago: leaves uninformed qualifications, places high premium raise money. Should persist adopt something closer invalidated, provides presented. inclined open up excitingly unpredictable theater jurisprudence. means While desirable replace it, unconstitutional. put forward, special factor revision assertion loyalty renders "uncompetitive." argue existence entrenched used impose additional competition nominee-selection parties. (The asserted rule," observe, Democrats some Republicans others. F.Supp.2d, 230.) novel implausible reading begin with, hard understand competitiveness anything respondents' makes difference person associates seeks contender underdog, favorite. Competitiveness dominant interests well protected adequate petition-signature inclusion eligible voters, Munro Socialist Workers Party, 189, 199, 533, 499 (1986), balloting procedures easily muster standard. Candidates via still providing requisite resident district. knowledge, outside Fourteenth contexts, ever entrenchment" basis interfering (Of course, lack one-party entrenchment cause validate unconstitutional restriction participation Bullock, 146-147, 849.) *801 rule usually is) approve positions regularly puts forward. can, limits (that is, short violating freedom association), discourage monopoly refusing show authority courts course. creates marketplace ideas, especially compete government interference. Abrams 250 616, 630, 40 17, 63 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). call manage market preventing many buyers settling single product. Limiting court-mandated endorsement" situations merely multiplies impracticable lines draw. add alluded earlier line mere popularity turns dominance." case Justices, drawn separately districtsand "competitive" presumably valid. why remedy dominance? Does dominance stifle competing opinions? Once again, decline enter morass. * thrice (in 1921) displayed willingness reconsider Justices. If wishes return discarded so; compel that. reverse contrary judgment. ordered. STEVENS, SOUTER joins, concurring. join SCALIA's cogent resolution issues raised think appropriate emphasize distinction between constitutionality wise policy. respect former should misread review, disagreement findings describe glaring deficiencies lend broader proposition unwise. recall my esteemed colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking numerous occasions: "The prohibit legislatures enacting stupid laws." KENNEDY, BREYER joins Part II, concurring Court's analysis, correct important respects; understanding controlling principles counsels concurrence expression observations. When state-mandated office, bound design ways participation. *802 57-58, (1973); 581-582, (2000); cf. Lubin Panish, 709, 716, 1315, 702 (1974); 144, (1972); Gray Sanders, 372 368, 380, 83 801, 9 821 (1963). objection scheme difficult connections backing office. Were state-mandated-and-designed sole attain considerable force, mechanism rigidities difficulties one. subject scrutiny standpoint "reasonably diligent candidate," Storer Brown, 724, 742, 1274, 714 took approach. 161, 196 careful note, second placement final Ante, 797. One qualify lesser (1) 5 last (2) either district). shown unreasonable one, point concede. True, gains designation; voters. alternative changes analysis. Cf. (1986) ("It said Washington's denied association channel expressive activity campaign election"). route exempts primary/nominating scrutiny. For instance, determining Texas' fees "patently exclusionary" wealth invoke strict Equal Protection Clause, rejected argument fee saved statute. 143-144, 849 ("[W]e abandon affiliations avoid fees"). dynamic relationship between, process; higher stage mitigated other. Burdick Takushi, 504 428, 448, 2059, 119 245 (KENNEDY, dissenting) ("The liberality laws determinant extent burden imposed write-in ban; not, though, automatic excuse forbidding voting"); Persily, Parties: Constitutional Constraints Ballot Access Laws, Geo. L.J. 2181, 2214-2216 (2001). And, though apply injuries (as Bullock) matter minor stage. recognized Kusper, moreover, *803 one's voice public 58, 303. On particular facts circumstances then, reach conclusion does. understandable refrains commenting elections decision. closing observation, seems order. considers conduct campaigns funds designed allow among groups persisting perception independence excellence. foundation freedom, presupposes functioning judiciary respected independence, professional attainments, absolute probity judges. seem reconcile aspirations Still, Framers provide judges, opposite choice, extent. light longstanding tradition practical response reject outright find highest qualifications. presents opportunity, civic obligation, community whole engaged Judicial elections, open, could essential forum society discuss define attributes excellence discern qualities organized bar, academy, advocacy groups, principled press, components democracy engage flawed systems emerge brave honorable exemplify ideals. unfair concept indifferent manipulation, criticism, serious abuse. Rule secured exercise will. statutes committed ideals ought now. But, today holds, further given separate opinion, permit us intervene. III With observations, concur

Category: 2