Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin Ex Rel. La Follette
1981 U.S. LEXIS 7, 67 L. Ed. 2d 82, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A national political party's First Amendment right of association includes the authority to establish its own rules for selecting delegates to its national nominating convention. This right overrides conflicting state laws that would compel the party to seat delegates chosen in a manner inconsistent with those rules.
Facts:
- The Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) enacted Rule 2A, which restricted participation in its presidential nomination process to voters who publicly declare their Democratic party preference.
- Wisconsin state law established an 'open' presidential preference primary, allowing any registered voter to participate in a party's primary without publicly declaring party affiliation.
- Wisconsin law further mandated that delegates selected to attend a party's national convention must vote in accordance with the results of this open primary.
- While delegates from Wisconsin were chosen in separate caucuses open only to publicly affiliated Democrats, state law legally bound them to vote based on the open primary's outcome.
- The National Party's Compliance Review Commission disapproved the Wisconsin Democratic Party's delegate selection plan because the binding nature of the open primary violated Rule 2A.
- The National Party subsequently informed the state party that delegates from Wisconsin bound by the open primary results would not be seated at the 1980 National Convention.
Procedural Posture:
- The Wisconsin Attorney General filed an original action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, naming the National Party and the state Democratic party as respondents.
- The State sought a declaratory judgment that its delegate selection system was constitutional and binding on the National Party.
- The state Democratic party filed a cross-claim against the National Party, asking the court to compel recognition of the delegates selected under Wisconsin law.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court, a court of first instance for this original action, entered a judgment declaring the state's system constitutional and binding on the National Party.
- The National Party and the Democratic National Committee appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, where they are the appellants and the State of Wisconsin is the appellee.
- The U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
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 law that binds a national political party's convention delegates to the results of an open primary, in which voters do not publicly declare their party affiliation, violate the party's First Amendment right of freedom of association?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes, the state law violates the party's First Amendment right of freedom of association. A state cannot constitutionally compel a national party to seat delegates who are selected in a manner that violates the party's rules. The freedom of association necessarily includes the right for a political party to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit participation in its core functions, such as selecting a presidential nominee, to those people. Citing Cousins v. Wigoda, the Court held that a state's interest in regulating its electoral process is not sufficiently compelling to justify a substantial intrusion into a national party's internal affairs and associational rights. The state's asserted interests in promoting voter participation and ballot secrecy relate to the primary election itself, not to the party's separate process of choosing its standard-bearer at a national convention.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No, the state law does not violate the party's First Amendment rights. The burden imposed by Wisconsin's open primary law on the National Party's associational freedom is not constitutionally significant, and it is justified by the state's compelling interests. The law only indirectly affects delegate selection by requiring private, rather than public, affiliation for the limited purpose of voting in a primary. Given that the Democratic Party is a broad, non-ideological coalition, the inclusion of independent-minded voters is unlikely to distort its nominating process. The state has a compelling interest in promoting voter participation and protecting ballot secrecy, which can only be achieved through a binding primary that gives voters meaningful control over the nomination process.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the autonomy of national political parties against state regulation, affirming the principles established in Cousins v. Wigoda. It establishes that a party's right to define its own membership and control its nomination process is a core First Amendment associational right that generally prevails over conflicting state election laws. The ruling empowers national parties to enforce uniform delegate selection rules across all states, potentially leading to fewer state-specific variations like open primaries if they conflict with national party policy. This precedent will be critical in future disputes between state governments and national parties over the rules governing presidential nominations.
