Facts
- California historically used a closed partisan primary limiting participation to registered party members.
- California voters enacted Proposition 198, creating a “blanket primary” in which every voter could vote for any candidate across all parties on a single primary ballot, selecting party nominees by plurality for the general election.
- Several qualified political parties challenged Proposition 198, arguing it forced them to allow nonmembers, including members of rival parties, to help choose their nominees.
- The federal district court upheld Proposition 198, finding any burden on associational rights not severe and justified by asserted state interests such as increasing participation and representation.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the blanket primary violated political parties’ First Amendment right of association.
Issues
- Whether a state may require political parties to select their nominees through a blanket primary that permits nonmembers, including opposing party members, to participate in choosing a party’s nominee.
- Whether Proposition 198 imposed a severe burden on political parties’ First Amendment associational rights, and if so, whether the burden was justified by sufficiently weighty state interests.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held that Proposition 198’s blanket primary violates political parties’ First Amendment freedom of association.
- The Court found the burden severe because it compelled parties to have their nominees—and thus their public message—determined in part by voters who were not members of the party and could be aligned with competing parties.
- The Court concluded California’s asserted interests (such as increased participation and encouraging moderation) did not justify the severe intrusion into party autonomy, particularly where less restrictive alternatives were available.
Legal Principles
- The First Amendment protects political association, including a political party’s right to identify its members and limit participation in core party functions.
- Selecting a party’s nominee is central to a party’s expressive and associational identity; compelled inclusion of nonmembers in that choice is a serious constitutional burden.
- When election regulation severely burdens associational rights, the state must show a strong justification and employ means that are necessary or closely fitted to the asserted interests.
- A blanket primary that allows any voter to participate in selecting any party’s nominee unconstitutionally compels association; alternative primary structures may be permissible if they do not force a party to open its nominee-selection to nonmembers.
Conclusion
California’s blanket primary required political parties to associate with and be influenced by nonmembers in choosing their nominees, imposing a severe First Amendment burden that the state’s asserted interests did not justify; Proposition 198 was therefore unconstitutional.