Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008)
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that Washington's Initiative 872, which established a top-two primary system, does not impose a severe burden on political parties' associational rights under the First Amendment, and therefore is not facially unconstitutional.
In the case of Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, the Supreme Court decided that a new voting system in Washington, which allows voters to pick any candidate regardless of party, does not unfairly limit political parties' rights. This matters because it helps ensure that voters have more choices and can support candidates based on their views rather than just their party affiliation. This case is relevant for consumers when they think about how elections are run and how their voting options might change, as it promotes a more open and inclusive electoral process.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In 2004, Washington State voters approved the People's Choice Initiative (I-872), which altered the state's primary election system. This initiative allowed candidates to be identified on the ballot by their self-designated "party preference," enabled voters to select any candidate regardless of party affiliation, and stipulated that the top two vote-getters for each office would advance to the general election, irrespective of their party preference. This change was significant as it moved away from the traditional blanket primary system that had been in place for decades, where voters could select candidates from all parties on a single ballot. The Washington State Republican Party and other political parties challenged the constitutionality of I-872, arguing that it imposed an unconstitutional burden on their First Amendment rights to free association. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that I-872 was facially invalid, asserting that it violated the political parties' rights. The Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision, ultimately reversing it. The background context of this case includes the historical use of blanket primaries in Washington and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in California Democratic Party v. Jones, which invalidated California's blanket primary on similar grounds. The Court had previously emphasized the importance of a political party's right to control its nomination process as a fundamental aspect of its associational rights. The ruling in this case would clarify the extent to which states can regulate primary elections without infringing on these rights.
Whether Washington State's Initiative 872, which establishes a top-two primary system, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the First Amendment rights of political parties.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- October 1, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005)
Consumer LostOklahoma's semiclosed primary system, which allows only registered party members and Independents to vote in a party's primary, does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of political association. States have broad authority to regulate the manner of elections, including the structure of their primary systems.
Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U.S. 177 (2007)
Consumer WonThe First Amendment does not require public-sector unions to obtain affirmative consent from nonmembers before using their agency fees for purposes not chargeable under Abood, thus upholding the constitutionality of Washington's law that prohibits such use without consent.
New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008)
Consumer LostThe electoral system established by New York, which requires political parties to select their nominees for Supreme Court Justice through a convention of delegates rather than direct primary elections, does not violate the First Amendment rights of prospective party candidates.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007)
Consumer WonThe First Amendment requires that political speech be protected, and as such, the regulation of speech under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act must not suppress genuine issue advocacy that mentions federal candidates, as it is not the "functional equivalent" of express campaign speech.