Washington State Grange v. Washington Republican Party & Washington v. Washington Republican Party (consolidated)
The Washington State Republican Party (the Republican Party) filed suit in federal district court in seeking to prevent the enforcement of Initiative 872, a state ballot initiative that would change the form of primary elections in Washington state. Previously, Washington had conducted "blanket" primary elections, which essentially allowed all voters, regardless of their own political party affiliations to vote for any candidate appearing on the blanket primary ballot, regardless of that candidate’s designated political party affiliation. The candidate who received the greatest number of votes in relation to other candidates with the same party affiliation would become that party’s nominee who would advance to the general election ballot. After Washington's blanket primary system was declared unconstitutional in 2004, the Washington Grange proposed two important changes to the system in Initiative 872: (1) to define a “partisan office” as “a public office for which a candidate may indicate a political party preference”; and (2) to adopt a “top two” rule whereby the two candidates with the greatest number of votes in the primary advance to the general election regardless of their expressed party preference. Under the Initiative 872 primary system, the candidates expressing a particular party “preference” would self-identify, and the winner of the largest number of votes among candidates with the same party preference would no longer be guaranteed a place on the general election ballot. Instead, two candidates with the same party preference could be the only candidates for a particular office appearing on the general election ballot.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Republican Party and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Ninth Circuit found that Initiative 872 imposed a severe burden on the First Amendment right of association of the Republican Party because it allowed the candidate to claim an association with his or her preferred party, regardless of any actual connection with the party, or the party’s desire to distance itself from a particular candidate. The practical result of such an election would be to force a political party’s members to associate with all candidates who, at their discretion, “prefer” that
party. The Ninth Circuit found no compelling state interest to justify the burden, and accordingly, found Initiative 872 to be unconstitutional.
Question Presented:
In California Democratic Party v. Jones, this Court recognized that, consistent with the First Amendment rights of political parties, a state may adopt a primary election system in which all voters may participate and the top vote recipients advance to
the general election, so long as “primary voters are not choosing a party’s nominee.” California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 585-86 (2000). Washington voters adopted a primary election system in which all qualified voters are allowed to vote for any candidate, and the two candidates receiving the most votes for a given office qualify for the general election ballot, without regard to party affiliation.
Does Washington’s primary election system in which all voters are allowed to vote for any candidate, and in which the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation, violate the associational rights of political parties because candidates are permitted to identify their political party preference on the ballot?
