New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres

Last updated

New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 3, 2007
Decided January 16, 2008
Full case nameNew York State Board of Elections, et al. v. Margarita Lopez Torres, et al.
Docket no. 06-766
Citations552 U.S. 196 ( more )
128 S. Ct. 791; 169 L. Ed. 2d 665; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 1093; 76 U.S.L.W. 4052; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 42
Case history
Prior411 F. Supp. 2d 212 (E.D.N.Y 2006), aff'd, 462 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2006).
Holding
The court upheld New York's party-based judicial election laws.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
ConcurrenceStevens, joined by Souter
ConcurrenceKennedy (in judgment), joined by Breyer (Part II)

N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that involved a constitutional challenge brought against New York State's judicial election law, alleging that it unfairly prevented candidates from obtaining access to the ballot. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge and held that the state's election laws did not infringe upon candidates' First Amendment associational rights. Several concurring justices emphasized, however, that their decision reflected only the constitutionality of the state's election system, and not its wisdom or merit.

Contents

Background: New York state judicial election process

In New York, political party judicial candidates for the Supreme Courts (the state's general jurisdiction trial court) are elected through a three-part scheme that involves a primary election, a nominating convention, and a general election. Independent candidates need only meet general signature requirements to obtain a place on the general ballot.

During the primary election, judicial delegates (not candidates) are elected by the parties' rank and file members for each assembly district. The chosen delegates are sent to the judicial convention for the judicial district in which the assembly district is located. (The state is split into twelve judicial districts, each having up to several dozen assembly districts.) The judicial delegates vote for their parties' judicial nominees, whose names are listed on the general ballot.

A person seeking a political party judicial nomination, accordingly, must assemble a delegate (or group of delegates, who run together) for each assembly district in their judicial district. They must collect separate signatures in each assembly district to get supporting delegate(s) onto the primary ballot and, because delegate nominees cannot disclose which candidate they are affiliated with, they must also mount separate voter education campaigns in each assembly district to explain to the voters which delegates are representing which candidate. After being elected, the delegates can theoretically choose any judicial candidate they wish, but the short timeframe between the primary election and the convention (about two weeks), and the overriding influence of the party establishment, mean that delegates typically do not exercise independent judgment in choosing which candidates to support. The process is too onerous for candidates without significant financial resources or the support of their political party's apparatus, reducing opportunity for independent candidates. [1] [2]

Facts and procedural posture

Margarita Lopez Torres received the Democratic Party nomination and was elected to the civil court for Kings County in 1992, becoming the first Latina to be elected to the court. [3] She allegedly fell out of favor with local party leaders shortly thereafter for refusing to make patronage hires. She claimed that party leaders later refused to support her candidacy for the Supreme Court in 1997, 2002, and 2003. Lopez Torres, along with similarly situated candidates, their supporters, and the public interest group Common Cause, brought suit in federal court against the state Board of Elections, claiming that the nomination system deprived voters and their candidates of their rights to gain access to the ballot and to associate in their parties' primaries.

The District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Second Circuit held in favor of Lopez Torres, finding that the voters and candidates possessed a First Amendment right to a

'realistic opportunity to participate in [a political party's] nominating process, and to do so free from burdens that are both severe and unnecessary.' New York's electoral law violated that right because of the quantity of signatures and delegate recruits required to obtain a Supreme Court nomination at a judicial convention ..., and because of the apparent reality that party leaders can control delegates. ... [4]

Supreme Court's decision

A nearly unanimous court in Lopez Torres overruled the Second Circuit and upheld the constitutionality of New York's judicial election system. The Court explained that although a political party has a First Amendment associational right to choose its candidates, that right is circumscribed when the party is given a role in the state's election process. Parties that are formally involved in the election process, for example, may be required to comply with a primary process and may be prohibited from maintaining racially discriminatory policies (which could become impermissible state action).

But, the Court explained, the political parties' associational rights were not at issue in the case; rather, the "weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party." [5] In refusing to acknowledge the existence of such a right, the Court explained that nothing in the law prohibited the candidates from attending the convention and lobbying the delegates, and nothing in the law compelled the delegates to vote for their parties' preferred candidates. As the Court explained,

Our cases invalidating ballot-access requirements have focused on the requirements themselves, and not on the manner in which political actors function under those requirements. ... None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination. [6]

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the existence of entrenched "one-party rule" rendered the general election uncompetitive. As the Court noted, candidates could obtain a place on the ballot, without party affiliation, via New York's general petition-signature requirements.

Concurring opinions

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Souter, wrote a concurring opinion to emphasize that the court's decision dealt with the constitutionality of New York's judicial election system, and not its wisdom. He quoted Justice Thurgood Marshall, saying "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws."

Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion emphasized that the political party nomination was not the sole method of securing a place on the ballot. As he explained, a person seeking a Supreme Court judgeship could alternatively meet general petition-signature requirements, these being the lesser of either (1) five percent of the number of votes last cast for governor in the judicial district or (2) either 3,500 or 4,000 signatures (depending on the district). Were this route to the ballot not available, he suggested that the constitutionality of New York's election laws would be in greater doubt. In the second part of his opinion, which was joined by Justice Breyer, Justice Kennedy discussed the important role that elections can play in the selection of judges, but warned that they might also foster abuse and manipulation. He stated:

If New York statutes for nominating and electing judges do not produce both the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of the law, they ought to be changed and to be changed now. But, as the Court today holds, ... the present suit does not permit us to invoke the Constitution in order to intervene. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Ballot access are rules and procedures regulating the right to candidacy, the conditions under which a candidate, political party, or ballot measure is entitled to appear on voters' ballots in elections in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alton B. Parker</span> American judge (1852–1926)

Alton Brooks Parker was an American judge. He was the Democratic nominee in the 1904 United States presidential election, losing in a landslide to incumbent Republican Theodore Roosevelt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York State Right to Life Party</span> Political party in United States

The New York State Right to Life Party was a minor anti-abortion American political party that was active only in the state of New York and was founded to oppose the legalization of abortion in New York State in 1970.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in New York (state)</span>

The results of elections in the state of New York have tended to be more Democratic-leaning than in most of the United States, with in recent decades a solid majority of Democratic voters, concentrated in New York City and some of its suburbs, including Westchester County, Rockland County and Long Island's Nassau county, and in the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and Ithaca.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Montana Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Montana

The Montana Supreme Court is the highest court of the state court system in the U.S. state of Montana. It is established and its powers defined by Article VII of the 1972 Montana Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of Montana's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. The court's Chief Justice and six Associate Justices are elected by non-partisan, popular elections. The Montana Supreme Court meets in the Joseph P. Mazurek Building in Helena, Montana, the state's capital, an international style building completed in 1982 and named in the honor of former Montana Attorney General, Joseph P. Mazurek.

Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Constitution did not grant the United States Congress the authority to regulate political party primaries or nomination processes. The court struck down 1911 amendments to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act which placed spending limits on candidate and political election committee spending in primaries or other nomination processes for federal office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Libertarian Party of Texas</span> State affiliate of the Libertarian Party

The Libertarian Party of Texas is the state affiliate of the Libertarian Party in Texas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virginia State Board of Elections</span>

The Virginia State Board of Elections (SBE) was created in 1946 as a nonpolitical agency responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, accuracy and purity in all elections in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The SBE promotes the proper administration of election laws, campaign finance disclosure compliance, and voter registration processes in the state by promulgating rules, regulations, issuing instructions, and providing information to local electoral boards and general registrars. In addition, the SBE maintains a centralized database of statewide voter registration and election related data.

The German federal election system regulates the election of the members of the national parliament, called the Bundestag. According to the principles governing the elections laws, set down in Art. 38 of the German Basic Law, elections are to be universal, direct, free, equal, and secret. Furthermore, the German Basic Law stipulates that Bundestag elections are to take place every four years and that one can vote, and be elected, upon reaching the age of 18. All other stipulations for the federal elections are regulated by the Federal Electoral Act. Elections always take place on a Sunday. Mail votes are possible upon application.

Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the authority of states to regulate the electoral process, and the point at which state regulations of the electoral process violate the First Amendment freedoms.

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that Ohio had violated the equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of two political parties by refusing to print their candidates' names on the ballot.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1825–1826 United States Senate election in New York</span>

The 1825/1826 United States Senate election in New York was held on February 1, 1825, and January 14, 1826, by the New York State Legislature to elect a U.S. Senator to represent the State of New York in the United States Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free the Vote North Carolina</span>

Free the Vote North Carolina is a North Carolina-focused Political Action Committee with the primary goal of lobbying for ballot access reform, to reduce burden on political third parties and unaffiliated candidates. The group seeks to educate North Carolinians about ballot access in their state, and equip voters with the knowledge of where candidates stand on voting right. They also advocate for the reformation of the State's candidate nomination system, and the system of primary elections.

Constitutional Assembly elections were held in Iceland on 27 November 2010. The Supreme Court invalidated the results of the election on 25 January 2011 following complaints about several faults in how the election was conducted. However, it was decided on 25 February 2011 that the elected assembly members would instead be appointed to a Constitutional Council with effectively the same role. The proposed changes to the constitution were approved in a referendum in October 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matthew F. Leitman</span> American judge (born 1968)

Matthew Frederick Leitman is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

An Icelandic Constitutional Council (Stjórnlagaráð) for the purpose of reviewing the Constitution of the Republic was appointed by a resolution of Althingi, the Icelandic parliament, on 24 March 2011. Elections were held to create a Constitutional Assembly (Stjórnlagaþing) body, but given some electoral flaws, had been ruled null and void by the Supreme Court of Iceland on 25 January 2011, leading the parliament to place most of the winning candidates into a Constitutional Council with similar mission. The question of whether the text of the proposed constitution should form a base for a future constitution was put to a non-binding referendum, where it won the approval of 67% of voters. However, the government's term finished before the reform bill could be passed, and following governments have not acted upon it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">June 2018 Maine Question 1</span>

Maine Question 1 was a people's veto referendum that appeared on the June 12, 2018 statewide ballot. It sought to reject a law passed by the Maine Legislature that suspended the implementation of ranked-choice voting, authorized by Maine voters in a previous referendum, for use in Maine elections until and if an amendment to the Maine Constitution is passed to expressly permit it; failing that, the law would be automatically repealed in 2021. It qualified because supporters of the original referendum collected the necessary number of signatures from registered Maine voters. This vote coincided with primary elections in which party nominees for governor, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and the Maine Legislature were chosen through RCV to run in general elections on November 6.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rocky De La Fuente</span> American businessman and perennial candidate (born 1954)

Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente Guerra is an American businessman and politician. A perennial candidate, De La Fuente was the Reform Party nominee in the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections. He also appeared on his own American Delta Party's presidential ticket in 2016, and on those of the Alliance Party and American Independent Party in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Montana District Courts</span> American state trial courts in Montana

Montana District Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the U.S. state of Montana. Montana District Courts have original jurisdiction over most civil cases, civil actions involving monetary claims against the state, criminal felony cases, naturalization proceedings, probate cases, and most writs. They may also hear certain special actions and proceedings, and oversee a narrowly-defined class of ballot issues. Montana District Courts also have limited appellate jurisdiction regarding cases that arise in Justice Courts, City Courts, and Municipal Courts as well as Judicial review of decisions by state administrative law tribunals that fall under the Montana Administrative Procedures Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James C. Ho</span> American federal judge (born 1973)

James Chiun-Yue Ho is a Taiwanese-born American lawyer and jurist serving since 2018 as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He was appointed by President Donald Trump. Ho formerly served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2008 to 2010. He has been identified as a potential Supreme Court nominee should Donald Trump be reelected in 2024.

References

  1. Lopez Torrez v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 462 F.3d 161, 171-178 (2d Cir. 2006), overruled 552 U.S. 196.
  2. See also Norman L. Greene, "Advancing the Rule of Law Through Judicial Selection Reform: Is the New York Court of Appeals Judicial Selection Process the Least of Our Concerns in New York?", 72 Alb. L. Rev. 633, 645-6464 (2009).
  3. Finn, Robin (January 25, 2008). "Blazing a Trail, and Following Her Own Sense of What's Right". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
  4. New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202 (2008).
  5. Lopez Torrez, 552 U.S. at 203.
  6. Lopez Torrez, 552 U.S. at 205.
  7. Lopez Torrez, 552 U.S. at 213 (Kennedy, J., concurring).