Breaking News: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Another Case Involving Party Primaries and Associational Rights

This morning the Supreme Court granted cert (order here) in Clingman v. Beaver, No. 04-37. The case below is Beaver v. Clingman, 363 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2004). Here is how the 10th Circuit opinion phrased the question before it:

This case presents issues at the intersection of two Supreme Court cases concerning the associational rights of political parties in the context of primary elections. Oklahoma's election statutes currently provide for a semi-closed primary system, in which a party may invite only its own party members and registered voters designated as Independents to vote in its primary. Along with registered voters of the Republican and Democratic parties, the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma (the "LPO") filed a § 1983 action, alleging that the Oklahoma election statutes regulating primaries violate their rights to freedom of political association and free speech by preventing the LPO from inviting members of other parties to vote in its primary elections.
The district court found the Oklahoma statutes to be constitutional. Because we conclude that the election laws impermissibly violate the LPO's associational rights, we exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and REVERSE.

After finding that the LPO had standing, and following the leading Supreme Court cases of Tashjian and California Democratic Party v. Jones, the Tenth Circuit had concluded that the burden on LPO was severe, and rejected four interests put forward by Oklahoma to justify its statute:

(1) protecting the LPO from "swamping" and "raiding"; (2) preventing voter confusion; (3) minimizing administrative difficulties; and (4) promoting and protecting "the integrity of the election process," which includes "preserving the political parties as viable and identifiable interest groups, insuring that the results of a primary election ... accurately reflect the voting of the party members, and prevention of confusion or misleading of the general electorate to the extent that the voting public often relies on party labels to make their choice.

Assuming the Court reaches the merits and does not get hung up on standing, this should be an interesting case, particularly because it involves the associational rights of a third party against the two major parties, an issue not presented in the earlier Tashjian and Jones cases.

Posted by Rick Hasen at September 28, 2004 07:47 AM