Torres v. New York State Bd. of Elections

Decision Date30 August 2006
Docket NumberDocket No. 06-0635-CV.
PartiesMargarita López TORRES, Steven Banks, C. Alfred Santillo, John J. Macron, Lili Ann Motta, John W. Carroll, Philip C. Segal, Susan Loeb, David J. Lansner, Common Cause/NY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Neil W. Kelleher, Carol Berman, Helen Moses Donohue, and Evelyn J. Aquila, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections, Defendants-Appellants, New York County Democratic Committee, New York Republican State Committee, Associations of New York State Supreme Court Justices in the City and State of New York, and Justice David Demarest, individually, and as President of the State Association, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Statutory-Intervenor-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law (Deborah Goldberg, James Sample, Adam H. Morse, on the brief), New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Kent A. Yalowitz, Arnold & Porter LLP (Angela D. Givens, Glynn Spelliscy, Elizabeth A. Wells, J. Alex Brophy, Amalia Jorns, on the brief), New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Jeremy M. Creelan, Jenner & Block LLP (Brian Hauck, Elizabeth Valentina, Carletta F. Higginson, on the brief), New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Andrew J. Rossman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (Steven M. Pesner, James P. Chou, James E. d'Auguste, Vincenzo A. DeLeo, Jamison A. Diehl, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant New York County Democratic Committee.

Arthur W. Greig, New York, NY, for Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant New York County Democratic Committee.

Todd D. Valentine, Special Counsel to State Board of Elections, Albany, NY, for Defendants-Appellants New York State Board of Elections, Neil W. Kelleher, Carol Berman, Helena Moses Donohue, and Evelyn J. Aquila.

Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant New York Republican State Committee.

Joseph L. Forstadt, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan (Ernst H. Rosenberger, Kevin J. Curnin, David Sifre, Mary A. Gorman, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants Associations of New York State Supreme Court Justices in the City and State of New York and the Hon. David Demarest.

Caitlin J. Halligan, Solicitor General (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Robert H. Easton, Mariya S. Treisman, Joel Graber, on the brief), New York, NY, as Statutory-Intervenor-Appellant and Counsel for Amicus Curiae New York State Legislature.

Adrian Zuckerman, Lowenstein Sandler PC (Robert C. Boneberg, Andrew R. Tulloch, Franklin R. Weissberg, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Women's Bar Association of the State of New York.

Steven De Castro, Law Office of Steven De Castro, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Boards of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association, Dominican Bar Association, Korean American Lawyers Association of Greater New York, and James F. Castro-Blanco, Esq., Eliezer Rodriguez, Esq., and Fiordaliza A. Rodriguez, Esq., in their individual capacities.

John Z. Marangos (Denise Marangos, Robert Mulhall, on the brief), Staten Island NY, for Amicus Curiae Richmond County Bar Association.

Christopher W. Chan (Steven B. Shapiro, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Asian American Bar Association of New York.

Preeta D. Bansal, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Sheila L. Birnbaum; Bettina B. Plevan, President, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Bar of the City of New York.

Jonathan R. Dowell, Heller Ehrman LLP (Holly K. Kulka, Ellen G. Jalkut, Anh P. Le, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Former New York State Judges.

Mariann Meier Wang, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Puerto Rican Bar Association, Latino Lawyers Association of Queens County, Inc., The Center for Law and Social Justice, The Amistad Black Bar Association of Long Island, and the Rochester Black Bar Association.

Monique Ferrell, Assistant District Attorney (Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Kings County, on the brief), Brooklyn, NY, for Amicus Curiae Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Kings County.

Norman L. Reimer, President, New York County Lawyers' Association, (Peter Bienstock, Stephanie G. Wheeler, Bradley P. Smith, Christopher F. Nelson, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae New York County Lawyers' Association.

Katherine B. Forrest, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (Joanne M. Gentile, Daniel P. Murphy, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Fund for Modern Courts.

Bruce S. Kaplan, Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman, LLP (Gaurav I. Shah, Laurence D. Borton, Jonathan Gottfried; Edward I. Koch, Bryan Cave LLP, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Edward I. Koch.

Tom Stein, Proskauer Rose LLP (Charles Sims, Peter Sherwin, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Citizens Union of the City of New York.

Arthur N. Eisenberg (Steven Alan Reiss, David R. Singh, William R. Cruse, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, on the brief), New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae New York Civil Liberties Union.

Christopher Earl Strunk, Brooklyn, NY, pro se as amicus curiae.

Before: STRAUB, SOTOMAYOR, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

STRAUB, Circuit Judge.

This case requires us to peer inside New York State's political clubhouses and determine whether party leaders have arrogated to themselves a choice that belongs to the people. The task falls to us by way of interlocutory appeal. Specifically, defendants-appellants appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction by the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson, Judge).

In its opinion and order, the District Court found a clear likelihood that New York State's process for nominating Supreme Court Justices violates the First Amendment rights of plaintiffs-appellees, who consist of judicial candidates, Republican and Democratic voters from across the state, and the non-profit group Common Cause/NY.1 Accordingly, the Court preliminarily enjoined defendants-appellants New York State Board of Elections and its commissioners from enforcing the statutory provisions that regulate the nominating process. Although the Court declined to order the State Legislature to enact a new nominating system, it required that nominations for the office of Supreme Court Justice proceed by primary election until the Legislature enacts a new scheme of its own accord. The District Court then stayed its order until after this year's election cycle, scheduled to conclude in November.

The precise issues presented are whether the District Court exceeded its discretion in (1) finding a clear likelihood that New York State's system for nominating its Supreme Court Justices violates the First Amendment, and (2) remedying that violation by (a) facially enjoining the relevant statutory provisions and (b) requiring that Supreme Court Justice nominations be settled through primary elections until the State Legislature enacts corrective legislation. We hold that the District Court acted within its allowable discretion on all scores.

Given the number of issues involved, we set out the following table of contents:

                BACKGROUND .................................................................... 171
                    I. NEW YORK STATE'S ELECTORAL SCHEME ...................................... 171
                       A. The Primary Election ................................................ 172
                       B. The Delegate Lobbying Period ........................................ 176
                       C. The Nominating Conventions .......................................... 178
                       D. The General Election ................................................ 178
                       E. The Candidacy of Margarita López Torres ............................. 178
                   II.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................... 181
                DISCUSSION .................................................................... 183
                    I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT EXCEED ITS ALLOWABLE DISCRETION IN
                        CONCLUDING THAT PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A CLEAR LIKELIHOOD OF
                        SUCCESS ON THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM ................................ 183
                       A. Standard of Review .................................................. 183
                       B. Substantive First Amendment Law ..................................... 183
                       C. The District Court Did Not Find and Apply An Overly Broad First
                            Amendment Right of Association .................................... 185
                          1. The First Amendment's Guarantee of Freedom of Association
                               Applies to New York's Judicial Nominating Process .............. 185
                
                          2. The First Amendment Guarantees Voters and Candidates a
                               Realistic Opportunity to Participate in the Nominating
                               Phase Free From Severe and Unnecessary Burdens ................. 187
                          3. The District Court Recognized and Applied
                               the Appropriate First Amendment Right .......................... 188
                       D. A Delegate-Based Nominating Convention System Is Not Per Se
                            Constitutional .................................................... 189
                       E. The Associational Rights of Political Parties Do Not Justify New
                            York's Nominating Scheme .......................................... 190
                       F. The Existence of an Alternate Means of Access to the General
                            Election Ballot Does Not Automatically Render Constitutional
                            New York's Regulation of the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • American Civil Liberties Union v. Santillanes
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • February 12, 2007
    ...to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate.'" Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 462 F.3d 161, 184 (2nd Cir.2006) (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564). The Court "must make that assessment not `in isolation, ......
  • Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 5, 2012
    ...to the District Court and to us, as well as the facts found by the District Court in its opinion. See Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 462 F.3d 161, 172 (2d Cir.2006) (drawing conclusions of law based upon facts found by the district court during a preliminary injunction proceed......
  • Amidon v. Student Ass'n of State Univ. Of New York
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 20, 2007
    ...500 U.S. 173, 183, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991)). Facial invalidation is "strong medicine," Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elecs., 462 F.3d 161, 205 (2d Cir.2006), and is used "sparingly and as a last resort." Finley, 524 U.S. at 580, 118 S.Ct. 2168 (quoting Broadrick v. Oklaho......
  • Davis v. Stratton, 1:06-CV-1323 (LEK/DRH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • September 9, 2008
    ...the application of a statute or policy must be necessary to serve a compelling government interest. Lopez Torres v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 462 F.3d 161, 184 (2d Cir.2006). Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the Quad constitutes, at most, a limited or designated public forum......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Jason M. Solomon, the Political Puzzle of the Civil Jury
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 61-6, 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...the path to becoming a state trial court judge in New York as one where local party leaders “control the process”), aff’d, 462 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006), rev’d, 552 U.S. 196 (2008).See Lawrence Baum & David Klein, Voter Responses to High-Visibility Judicial Campaigns, inRUNNING FOR JUDGE: THE......
  • What makes a good appointive system for the selection of state court judges: the vision of the symposium.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 34 No. 1, January 2007
    • January 1, 2007
    ...the component parts of a gold standard appointive system?"). (4.) Feerick, supra note 1, at 7. (5.) 411 F. Supp. 2d 212 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 462 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. granted, 127 S. Ct. 1325 (2007). The Supreme Court granted review of Lopez Torres as this Article was going to (6.) J......
  • Help wanted: is there a better way to select judges?
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 34 No. 1, January 2007
    • January 1, 2007
    ...become "nastier, noisier, and costlier"). (8.) Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 411 F. Supp. 2d 212 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), aff'd, 462 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. granted, 127 S. Ct. 1325 (2007). The Supreme Court granted review of Lopez Torres as this article was going to (9.) Matt......
  • Courting court reform: looking back, moving forward.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 71 No. 2, March 2008
    • March 22, 2008
    ...convention system, did not find it unconstitutional. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 128 S. Ct. 791, 800-01 (2008), rev'g 462 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006). The nominating process still needs (25) See Brief of Former New York State Judges and the American Judicature Society as Amicus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT