Cousins v. Wigoda
419 U.S. 477, 42 L. Ed. 2d 595, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 21 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A national political party's rules for selecting and seating delegates at its national convention supersede conflicting state laws due to the party's First and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of political association.
Facts:
- In the March 1972 Illinois primary election, Democratic voters elected the 59 Wigoda delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention, in accordance with the Illinois Election Code.
- A rival group, the Cousins delegates, challenged the seating of the Wigoda delegates before the Credentials Committee of the National Democratic Party.
- The Cousins delegates alleged that the slate-making procedures used to select the Wigoda delegates violated the national party's reform guidelines regarding minority, women, and youth participation.
- A Hearing Officer for the Credentials Committee found that the Wigoda delegates had indeed been chosen in violation of party guidelines.
- On June 30, 1972, the Credentials Committee adopted the Hearing Officer’s recommendation to unseat the Wigoda delegates and seat the Cousins delegates in their place.
- On July 10, 1972, the full Democratic National Convention adopted the Credentials Committee's recommendation, officially seating the Cousins delegates and refusing to seat the Wigoda delegates.
Procedural Posture:
- The Wigoda delegates filed suit against the Cousins delegates in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, seeking to enjoin them from acting as delegates.
- On July 8, 1972, the Illinois Circuit Court (trial court) granted an injunction that prohibited the Cousins delegates from acting as delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
- The Cousins delegates (appellants) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the trial court's injunction.
- The Cousins delegates (appellants) sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois (highest state court), which was denied.
- The Cousins delegates (petitioners) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of 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 a state court injunction, enforcing state election law to determine the seating of delegates at a national political party's convention, unconstitutionally infringe upon the party's and its members' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of political association when the state law conflicts with the party's own rules?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. A state court injunction enforcing state election law over a national political party's delegate selection rules is an unconstitutional infringement on the party's rights of political association. The freedom to associate for the advancement of political beliefs is a fundamental right protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. While Illinois has a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of its electoral process, that interest is not compelling enough to justify abridging the national party's associational rights. The selection of presidential candidates is a national process, and allowing each of the 50 states to impose its own rules on delegate qualifications would be an 'obviously intolerable result' that could destroy the effectiveness of the national convention. Therefore, the convention itself is the proper forum for resolving internal party disputes over delegate credentials, and its decisions take precedence over conflicting state laws.
Concurring - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The state court injunction should be reversed because it is a direct and severe infringement on the petitioners' right of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state's interest in the integrity of its primary, while legitimate, is not sufficient to support a total restriction on the petitioners' right to assemble and petition the national convention to be seated. However, the majority's reasoning is unnecessarily broad and hints at resolving complex constitutional questions not before the court, such as the 'state action' doctrine, and mischaracterizes the Court's prior opinion in O'Brien v. Brown. The decision should rest unequivocally on the freedom of association, without delving into the relative power of national versus state interests or the state's constitutional role in presidential elections, which is explicitly granted by Article II, § 1 regarding the appointment of electors.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Powell
Yes, in part. The National Convention of the Democratic Party cannot be compelled to seat the Wigoda delegates, as this would infringe on the party's associational rights. However, the Illinois courts are not powerless to enjoin the Cousins delegates from sitting as delegates representing specific districts in Illinois. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from being represented by delegates whom those citizens rejected in a democratic election. The court should have affirmed the injunction only insofar as it barred the Cousins delegates from purporting to represent specific Illinois election districts, while the party remained free to seat them as at-large delegates.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolstered the autonomy of national political parties, establishing that their internal rules on governance and membership, particularly concerning delegate selection for a national convention, prevail over conflicting state laws. The ruling grounded this autonomy in the First Amendment's freedom of association, applying a compelling interest test that state regulations in this area are unlikely to meet. The case affirmed the principle that national parties are the ultimate arbiters of their own internal disputes, limiting the power of states and courts to interfere in the presidential nominating process. This precedent has shaped the relationship between state governments and national parties, ensuring parties can enforce national standards and reforms on their state affiliates.
