New York State Board of Elections, et al. v. Margarita López Torres et al.
128 S. Ct. 791 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment does not create a judicially enforceable right for a political candidate to have a 'fair shot' at winning a party's nomination. A state's use of a delegate convention system to select party nominees for office, a historically accepted method, is not unconstitutional, even if party leadership wields significant influence over the outcome.
Facts:
- New York law mandates that major political parties nominate their candidates for State Supreme Court Justice at a judicial district convention.
- Delegates to these conventions are elected by enrolled party members during a primary election.
- The primary ballot for these delegates does not indicate which judicial candidate the delegates will support, meaning they are formally 'uncommitted.'
- Respondent López Torres, a civil court judge, unsuccessfully sought the Democratic Party's nomination for Supreme Court Justice at nominating conventions in 1997, 2002, and 2003.
- López Torres alleged her repeated failures were due to local party leadership actively opposing her candidacy because she had previously refused their demands to make patronage hires.
- López Torres claimed this system effectively gives party leaders control over judicial nominations, making it practically impossible for candidates to win without leadership's support.
Procedural Posture:
- López Torres and other plaintiffs filed suit against the New York Board of Elections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaration that New York's convention system was unconstitutional and an injunction requiring a direct primary.
- The District Court granted a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs, ordering the state to use a primary system for judicial nominations.
- The New York Board of Elections (petitioner) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A unanimous panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in favor of López Torres (respondent).
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit's decision.
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 New York's system of selecting major-party judicial nominees through a delegate convention, rather than a direct primary, violate the First Amendment associational rights of prospective candidates and voters?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. New York's convention system for selecting judicial nominees does not violate the First Amendment. The Constitution does not guarantee an individual a 'fair shot' at winning a party's nomination. States have the authority to prescribe the process for party nominations, and selection by convention is a traditional and constitutional method. Respondents' complaint is not with the state law itself, which sets reasonable ballot-access requirements for delegates, but with the political reality that party leadership is more effective at persuading voters and delegates. The First Amendment does not protect against losing a political contest or require courts to level the playing field within a party's internal selection process.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. While joining the majority's constitutional analysis, this opinion distinguishes between constitutionality and wise policy. The electoral system under review has 'glaring deficiencies' and the practice of electing judges may be unwise. However, the holding that the system is constitutional should not be seen as an endorsement of its merits, as the Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting 'stupid laws.'
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. Concurring in the judgment, this opinion emphasizes that the system's constitutionality is saved by the existence of an alternative path to the general election ballot. A candidate who fails to win the party's nomination at the convention can still qualify to appear on the ballot by collecting a reasonable number of petition signatures. If the convention were the sole means of ballot access, the burdens it places on candidates lacking party support might be severe enough to be unconstitutional. The dynamic relationship between the difficult convention process and the available, less burdensome petition process mitigates the First Amendment concerns.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that states have broad discretion in structuring their election and party nomination processes. It firmly rejects the creation of a new, judicially manageable standard of a 'fair shot' at a party nomination, pushing such political disputes back to the legislative arena. The ruling reinforces that the First Amendment protects against unduly burdensome state laws (e.g., exorbitant filing fees or signature requirements), but not against the natural political influence of party leadership. This creates a high bar for challengers seeking to overturn a state's chosen nomination method on constitutional grounds, limiting judicial intervention into the internal workings of political parties.
