489 U.S. 214, 109 S. Ct. 1013, 103 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1989)
The State of California heavily regulates its political parties through the Elections Code.1
The Code designates the state convention, state central committee, and county central committees as the official governing bodies responsible for conducting the party's campaigns.2 The Code prohibits these bodies from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for nomination by the party in a direct primary election.3 It is a misdemeanor for any primary candidate to claim that she is the officially endorsed candidate of the party.4
Separate statutory provisions dictate the size and composition of the state central committees, set forth rules governing the selection and removal of committee members, fix the maximum term of office for the chair of the state central committee, require that the chair rotate between residents of northern and southern California, specify the time and place of committee meetings, and limit the dues parties may impose on members.5
Various county central committees of the Democratic and Republican Parties, the state central committee of the Libertarian Party, members of various state and county central committees, and other groups and individuals active in partisan politics in California brought this action in federal court against state officials responsible for enforcing the Code.6 The complaint challenged the ban on endorsements in partisan primary elections, the ban on endorsements in nonpartisan elections, and the provisions that prescribe the composition of state central committees, the term of office and eligibility criteria for state central committee chairs, the time and place of state and county central committee meetings, and the dues county committee members must pay.7
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment supported by 28 declarations from committee chairs, political scientists, and elected officials.8 The State moved for summary judgment supported by one declaration from a former state senator.9
The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the first count, ruling that the ban on primary endorsements violated the First Amendment.10 The court stayed all proceedings on the second count under the abstention doctrine of Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co.11 The court denied summary judgment with respect to the statutory provisions establishing the time and place of committee meetings and the amount of dues.12
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment.13 This Court vacated that decision and remanded for further consideration in light of Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut.14 After supplemental briefing, the Court of Appeals again affirmed.15
The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and now affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals.16
Whether California's prohibition on endorsements by the official governing bodies of political parties in partisan primary elections burdens rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?17
To assess the constitutionality of a state election law, we first examine whether it burdens rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.18 If the challenged law burdens the rights of political parties and their members, it can survive constitutional scrutiny only if the State shows that it advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
Yes. The California Elections Code designates the state convention, state central committee, and county central committees as official governing bodies responsible for conducting party campaigns. The Code prohibits those bodies from endorsing candidates in direct primary elections under sections 11702 and 29430.19 Other groups such as political clubs and newspapers remain free to endorse.20
This prohibition prevents party bodies from stating whether a candidate adheres to party tenets.21 The ban directly hampers the ability of parties to spread their message to voters.22 With the official party organizations silenced by the ban, it has been possible for a candidate with views antithetical to those of her party nevertheless to win its primary.23 The ban therefore burdens the free speech and associational rights of parties and their members.24
California's prohibition on primary endorsements by official party governing bodies burdens rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.25
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens joined the Court's opinion but recorded his unrelieved discomfort with the continued use of phrases such as compelling state interest and least drastic means as tests in election cases.26 He explained that these formulations are too convenient and result oriented, reminiscent of substantive due process in the economic area, and that a judge could always imagine a less restrictive alternative.27 Stevens emphasized that apart from these phrases the result reached by the Court was correct, and he joined with those reservations.28
Whether California's statutes that dictate the size, composition, leadership terms, rotation requirements, meeting schedules, and dues of political party central committees burden rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?29
Yes. The California Elections Code dictates the precise size and composition of state central committees.32 The Code fixes maximum terms for chairs at two years without successive terms.33 The Code requires rotation of the chair between northern and southern California residents.34 The Code specifies meeting times and places.35 The Code limits dues that parties may impose.36
These provisions prevent parties from choosing a greater number of local activists as leaders.37 The provisions prevent extending a chair's term beyond two years when needed for policy implementation.38 The provisions prevent selecting a northern resident as chair when that choice would best unify the party.39 The statutes therefore directly limit the parties' discretion in organizing themselves and selecting leaders.40
California's statutes regulating the internal governance of political party central committees burden rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.41
Whether the burdens imposed by California's prohibition on primary endorsements and its regulation of party internal governance are justified by compelling state interests?42
If the challenged law burdens the rights of political parties and their members, it can survive constitutional scrutiny only if the State shows that it advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. A State cannot justify regulating a party's internal affairs without showing that such regulation is necessary to ensure an election that is orderly and fair.43
No. California offered interests in stable government and protecting voters from confusion.44 The State provided no showing that the endorsement ban advances stability.45 The system is not demonstrably more stable than before the 1963 enactment.46 Virtually no other state has adopted such a ban.47
The state failed to show that regulating internal party affairs is necessary to ensure fair and orderly elections.48 The State cannot substitute its judgment for that of the parties on internal structure.49 The State cannot protect parties from their own decisions.50 The laws therefore cannot be upheld.51
The burdens imposed by the challenged California election laws are not justified by any compelling state interest.52