Court Opinion

ID: 9425903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:16:09.615877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:58.239935
License: Public Domain

Mb. Justice Powell,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the National Convention of the Democratic Party could not be compelled to seat respondents. I disagree, however, that the Illinois courts are without power to enjoin petitioners from sitting as delegates representing districts in that State. To this limited extent, I dissent.
The Illinois Legislature has enacted a comprehensive scheme for regulating the election of delegates to national party conventions, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 46, § 7-1 et seq. (1973), including a means by which a defeated candidate may challenge the election. § 7-63. Respondents were duly elected in primaries held in various election districts in the city of Chicago. Petitioners, for the most part, were people who had lost in these primaries and who eventually were selected in private caucuses as a challenge delegation. They made no challenge under state law but, rather, they successfully unseated respondents at *497the Convention and had themselves seated as delegates representing the districts in which the ousted delegates had been elected.
The Illinois Appellate Court concluded that the Democratic Party
“most certainly could not seat people of their choice and force them upon the people of Illinois as their representatives, contrary to their elective mandate.” 14 Ill. App. 3d 460, 479, 302 N. E. 2d 614, 631 (1973).
I agree with this statement. Had the court’s decision been limited to this conclusion, it would not have infringed in any way the assoeiational rights of petitioners or the Democratic Party. The National Convention of the Party may seat whomever it pleases, including petitioners, as delegates at large. The State of Illinois, on the other hand, has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from being represented by delegates who have been rejected by these citizens in a democratic election. Accordingly I would affirm the injunctions of the trial court insofar as they bárred petitioners from purporting, contrary to Illinois law, to represent certain election districts of that State.*

 I also agree with the Court that this case intimates no views regarding other efforts to regulate party conventions. Congressional regulation of national conventions or state regulation of state primaries or conventions, for state offices raises different considerations requiring a wholly different balance.