Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee
1989 U.S. LEXIS 1042, 103 L. Ed. 2d 271, 489 U.S. 214 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's election laws that burden the First Amendment rights of political parties and their members, such as a ban on primary endorsements or direct regulation of a party's internal structure and leadership, are unconstitutional unless the state can show the laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Facts:
- The California Elections Code prohibited the official governing bodies of political parties from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate in a partisan primary election.
- The Code made it a misdemeanor for a candidate to claim they had the official endorsement of a political party.
- While official party bodies were silenced, other private groups such as political clubs, labor organizations, and newspapers were free to endorse candidates in primaries.
- The Code also extensively regulated the internal affairs of political parties, dictating the size and composition of their central committees.
- Additionally, the law limited the term of a party's state central committee chair to two years and required the position to rotate between residents of northern and southern California.
- As a result of the endorsement ban, candidates with views antithetical to a party's platform, such as a Ku Klux Klan leader running as a Democrat, were able to win primary nominations.
Procedural Posture:
- Various political party central committees and individuals sued California state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The plaintiffs sought to invalidate provisions of the California Elections Code that banned primary endorsements and regulated party governance, claiming they violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding the challenged provisions unconstitutional.
- The State of California appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of a recent precedent, Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut.
- On remand, the Ninth Circuit again affirmed the District Court's ruling that the laws were unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the case.
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 the California Elections Code, which bans official political party bodies from endorsing candidates in primary elections and dictates the parties' internal organization and leadership, violate the free speech and associational rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. The California Elections Code provisions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because they impermissibly burden the rights of political speech and association without being narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The ban on primary endorsements directly hampers a party's ability to spread its message and infringes on its right to identify its preferred standard-bearers. The state's proffered interests in promoting a stable government and preventing voter confusion are not compelling; preserving party unity from internal factionalism is not a legitimate state interest, as primaries are the appropriate forum for resolving such disputes. Similarly, the laws dictating a party's internal structure, composition, and leadership selection directly interfere with associational rights without being necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of the electoral process.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. While agreeing with the Court's conclusion that the California laws are unconstitutional, this opinion expresses 'unrelieved discomfort' with the use of tests like 'compelling state interest' and 'least drastic means.' Justice Stevens argues these phrases are 'too convenient and result oriented' and can be used by judges to simply announce a pre-determined result rather than serve as a helpful analytical framework. He joins the majority's opinion and its outcome despite these significant reservations about its legal reasoning and methodology.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the First Amendment associational rights of political parties, treating them as private entities with broad discretion over their own speech and internal governance. The ruling curtails the state's power to regulate party affairs, establishing that such regulations will be subject to strict scrutiny. It clarifies that a state's interest in 'orderly elections' does not extend to protecting parties from their own internal disagreements or substituting the state's judgment for the party's on how to best organize and communicate. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for states to micromanage political parties under the guise of promoting electoral stability or preventing party factionalism.
