California Democratic Party v. Jones
147 L. Ed. 2d 502, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 530 U.S. 567 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's blanket primary system that allows non-party members to vote for a party's nominee violates the political party's First Amendment right of association. Forcing a party to have its nominee, and thereby its message, determined by non-members constitutes a severe and unnecessary burden on this right.
Facts:
- Historically, California used a 'closed' primary system, in which only voters registered with a specific political party could vote for that party's nominees.
- The California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party each had internal rules prohibiting non-members from voting in their respective primaries.
- In 1996, California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 198, which replaced the closed primary with a 'blanket' primary.
- Under Proposition 198, all registered voters received a single ballot and could vote for any candidate for any office, irrespective of party affiliation.
- Despite the open voting, the candidate of each party who won the greatest number of votes was designated as that party's official nominee for the general election.
- The stated purpose of Proposition 198 was to weaken party 'hard-liners' and elect more 'moderate problem-solvers.'
- Evidence from a survey showed that 37% of Republicans planned to vote in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, and 20% of Democrats planned to vote in the Republican U.S. Senate primary.
- For minor parties like the Libertarian and Peace and Freedom Parties, the total votes cast for their candidates in some primary races was more than double the number of their registered members.
Procedural Posture:
- Four political parties sued the California Secretary of State in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging Proposition 198 violated their First Amendment rights.
- The group Californians for an Open Primary intervened as a defendant to support the law.
- The District Court held that the burden on the parties' rights was not severe and upheld the blanket primary.
- The plaintiff political parties appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, adopting its opinion as its own.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's blanket primary system, which permits voters to vote for any candidate in a primary election regardless of the voter's or candidate's party affiliation, violate a political party's First Amendment right of freedom of association?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes, California's blanket primary system violates a political party's First Amendment right of freedom of association. A corollary of the right to associate is the right not to associate, and this right is paramount when a party selects its nominee, who serves as the party's standard-bearer and communicates its message. Proposition 198 forces parties to associate with non-members and have their nominees determined by them, which constitutes a 'severe' burden on their associational rights. The state's proffered interests—such as producing more representative officials, expanding debate, and increasing voter participation—are not compelling because they reduce to a mere desire to change the parties' messages and force them to select nominees they otherwise would not choose. Even if the interests were compelling, the law is not narrowly tailored, as a nonpartisan blanket primary could achieve similar goals without infringing on the parties' associational rights.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, California's blanket primary system does not violate the First Amendment. A state's power to determine how its officials are elected is a core attribute of its sovereignty, and primary elections are state action, not purely private party affairs. The right not to associate is inapplicable to participation in a state-run, state-financed election. When a state acts to broaden voter participation, it acts as a friend, not a foe, of the First Amendment. The burden on the parties is not severe, as evidence from other states shows that raiding by opposing party members is minimal and benevolent crossover voting rarely changes election outcomes. The state's interests in increasing the representativeness of elected officials, giving voters greater choice, and increasing voter turnout are compelling justifications for the system.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the blanket primary system is unconstitutional. While encouraging voter participation is a legitimate state objective, the true purpose of Proposition 198 is to force political parties to change their doctrinal positions by saddling them with unwanted candidates. This is a direct incursion on the party's associational freedom to control its own message. Furthermore, the state's suggestion that parties can simply endorse their preferred candidates is an inadequate remedy, particularly because campaign finance laws, as interpreted by the Court, unconstitutionally limit a party's ability to coordinate spending and financially support its chosen candidate, creating an impermissible double burden.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutional protection for a political party's autonomy in its nomination process, treating parties as private, expressive associations rather than quasi-state actors. It establishes that a party's First Amendment right to define its own message and membership outweighs a state's interest in promoting moderation or voter inclusivity through the primary system. By striking down the blanket primary, the Court set a precedent that prioritizes party integrity over state-mandated openness, casting significant constitutional doubt on other forms of open primaries that allow non-members to influence a party's choice of nominee. This ruling reinforces the idea that the core function of a primary is for party members to select their standard-bearer, not for the general electorate to pre-screen candidates.
