Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut
479 U.S. 208 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute requiring voters in a party's primary election to be registered members of that party unconstitutionally infringes upon the party's First Amendment right to freedom of political association when the party wishes to allow non-member independent voters to participate.
Facts:
- In 1984, the Republican Party of the State of Connecticut adopted a party rule permitting independent voters—registered voters not affiliated with any party—to vote in its primaries for federal and statewide offices.
- At the time, a Connecticut statute, § 9-431, mandated a 'closed primary' system, requiring that any voter participating in a party's primary must be a registered member of that party.
- The Republican Party's new rule was motivated in part by the large and growing number of independent voters in Connecticut, who constituted a significant demographic.
- The Party's leadership in the state legislature proposed amending the state law to conform with the new party rule.
- The proposed legislation was defeated, leading to a direct conflict between the Party's rule and the state's election law.
Procedural Posture:
- The Republican Party of Connecticut and several of its officials sued Julia Tashjian, the Secretary of the State of Connecticut, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the state's closed-primary statute was unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent its enforcement.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Republican Party.
- Tashjian, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the statute unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
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 requires voters in any political party's primary to be registered members of that party violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment associational rights of a party that wishes to permit unaffiliated independent voters to vote in its primary?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. A state law enforcing a closed primary system against a political party's wishes impermissibly burdens the party's First Amendment rights of association. The freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas includes the right of a political party to identify the people who constitute its association and to determine the boundaries of its own political community. The State's justifications for the law—ensuring administrability, preventing raiding, avoiding voter confusion, and protecting party integrity—are insubstantial and do not outweigh the Party's fundamental associational rights. A state cannot protect a political party from the consequences of its own decisions about how best to pursue its political goals.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
This opinion does not directly answer the First Amendment issue but argues the Court's holding creates a constitutional violation on other grounds. The majority's decision violates the Qualifications Clauses of Article I and the Seventeenth Amendment, which require that electors for federal office have the same qualifications as electors for the most numerous branch of the state legislature. By allowing independents to vote in federal primaries but not state legislative primaries, the Party's rule creates an unconstitutional asymmetry in voter qualifications, contravening the plain text and intent of the Constitution.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The Connecticut law does not unconstitutionally impair the Republican Party's freedom of association. The associational interest at stake is exaggerated; a voter casting a ballot is not a meaningful act of association. The true associational right belongs to the Party's members to select their own candidate, and the State is entitled to protect this right from being diluted by the votes of outsiders who are unwilling to become members. The state has a legitimate interest in prescribing a democratic election process and may lawfully require that a party's nominee be selected by the party's actual members, even if the party itself prefers a different method.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the First Amendment associational rights of political parties, granting them greater autonomy to define their membership and participation rules. It establishes that a party's right to broaden its base and determine its own outreach strategies can override a state's interest in maintaining a rigid, closed primary system. The ruling treats political parties as private associations with protected boundaries, limiting the state's power to regulate their internal nominating processes. This precedent empowers parties to experiment with more open primary systems but also raises questions about the limits of that autonomy, such as whether a party could open its primary to members of an opposing party.
Unlock the full brief for Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut