## Facts

- New York elects State Supreme Court justices in judicial districts, and state law requires major parties to nominate candidates through judicial district conventions rather than direct primaries.
- Party members in each Assembly district elect delegates to the nominating convention.
- To run for delegate, a candidate must file a petition supported by 500 signatures gathered within a prescribed period.
- Delegates meet at the convention and choose the party’s judicial nominees, who then appear on the general-election ballot.
- Candidates may also seek the general-election ballot as independents by satisfying separate signature and filing requirements.
- Margarita Lopez Torres, a judicial candidate lacking party leadership support, and allied voters alleged that party leaders effectively controlled delegate selection and convention outcomes, making the convention a practical “rubber stamp.”

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s convention-based system for selecting major-party nominees for State Supreme Court justice violates the First Amendment associational rights of candidates and voters by denying challengers a realistic opportunity to win the party nomination.
2. Whether delegate-access requirements (including the 500-signature petition within a limited period) impose an unconstitutional burden on participation in the nominating process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Second Circuit and upheld New York’s judicial convention nominating system.
- The Court held that the First Amendment does not require a state to structure a party’s nomination process to give dissenting or “insurgent” candidates a “fair shot” at winning.
- The Court found New York’s delegate ballot-access rules reasonable and within the range of permissible election regulation.
- The Court concluded that political dominance by party leadership, without a state-imposed barrier that substantially burdens participation, does not establish a First Amendment violation.
- Concurring justices agreed the system could be criticized as a policy matter but not invalidated on the constitutional record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Political parties have First Amendment associational rights to choose their candidate-selection method, but individual candidates cannot invoke those party rights to demand a different internal structure.
- The First Amendment does not impose an obligation on government to ensure internal party democracy or to maximize electoral competitiveness within a party.
- States may require a minimum showing of support for ballot access through signature and timing rules, so long as the burdens are reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
- A nomination system is not unconstitutional merely because party leadership influence makes it difficult, as a practical matter, for challengers to defeat party-backed slates.

## Conclusion

New York’s use of elected delegates and judicial nominating conventions for State Supreme Court candidates was constitutional because the First Amendment does not guarantee insurgent candidates a “fair shot” at a party nomination, and the state’s ballot-access and delegate-selection requirements were reasonable rather than severely burdensome.


N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008)