New York State Bd. of Elections v. Torres

Decision Date16 January 2008
Docket NumberNo. 06–766.,06–766.
Citation169 L.Ed.2d 665,76 USLW 4052,128 S.Ct. 791,21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 42,08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 554,552 U.S. 196,2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 638
PartiesNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., Petitioners, v. Margarita LÓPEZ TORRES et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus *

Under New York's current Constitution, State Supreme Court Justices are elected in each of the State's judicial districts. Since 1921, New York's election law has required parties to select their nominees by a convention composed of delegates elected by party members. An individual running for delegate must submit a 500–signature petition collected within a specified time. The convention's nominees appear automatically on the general-election ballot, along with any independent candidates who meet certain statutory requirements. Respondents filed suit, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that New York's convention system violates the First Amendment rights of challengers running against candidates favored by party leaders and an injunction mandating a direct primary election to select Supreme Court nominees. The Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction, pending the enactment of a new state statutory scheme, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Held: New York's system of choosing party nominees for the State Supreme Court does not violate the First Amendment. Pp. 797 – 801.

(a) Because a political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform, a State's power to prescribe party use of primaries or conventions to select nominees for the general election is not without limits. California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 577, 120 S.Ct. 2402, 147 L.Ed.2d 502. However, respondents, who claim their own associational right to join and have influence in the party, are in no position to rely on the right that the First Amendment confers on political parties. Pp. 797 – 799.

(b) Respondents' contention that New York's electoral system does not assure them a fair chance of prevailing in their parties' candidate-selection process finds no support in this Court's precedents. Even if Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 57, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260, which acknowledged an individual's associational right to vote in a party primary without undue state-imposed impediment, were extended to cover the right to run in a party primary, the New York law's signature and deadline requirements are entirely reasonable. A State may demand a minimum degree of support for candidate access to a ballot, see Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554. P. 798.

(c) Respondents' real complaint is that the convention process following the delegate election does not give them a realistic chance to secure their party's nomination because the party leadership garners more votes for its delegate slate and effectively determines the nominees. This says no more than that the party leadership has more widespread support than a candidate not supported by the leadership. Cases invalidating ballot-access requirements have focused on the requirements themselves, and not on the manner in which political actors function under those requirements. E.g., Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92. Those cases do not establish an individual's constitutional right to have a “fair shot” at winning a party's nomination. Pp. 798 – 800.

(d) Respondents' argument that the existence of entrenched “one-party rule in the State's general election demands that the First Amendment be used to impose additional competition in the parties' nominee-selection process is a novel and implausible reading of the First Amendment. Pp. 800 – 801.

462 F.3d 161, reversed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BREYER, J., joined as to Part II.

Theodore B. Olson, for Petitioners New York State Board of Elections, et al.

Andrew J. Rossman, for Petitioners New York County Democratic Committee, et al.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., for Respondents.Todd D. Valentine, Albany, NY, Randy M. Mastro, Jennifer L. Conn, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, Theodore B. Olson, Matthew D. McGill, Michael S. Diamant, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners New York State Board of Elections, Douglas Kellner, Neil W. Kelleher, Helena Moses Donohue and Evelyn J. Aquila.Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., for the New York Republican State Committee, Thomas C. Goldstein, Amanda R. Johnson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C., for the New York County Democratic Committee, Steven M. Pesner, Andrew J. Rossman, James P. Chou, James E. d'Auguste, Vincenzo A. DeLeo, Jamison A. Diehl, Michael D. Lockard, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, New York, for the New York County Democratic Committee, Edward P. Lazarus, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Los Angeles, California, for the New York County Democratic Committee, Joseph L. Forstadt, Ernst H. Rosenberger, Burton N. Lipshie, David A. Sifre, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, New York, New York, for Associations of New York State Supreme Court Justices in the City and State of New York Honorable David Demarest, J.S.C., Arthur W. Greig, New York, New York, for the New York County Democratic Committee.Andrew M. Cuomo, New York, NY, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Benjamin N. Gutman, Deputy Solicitor General, Denise A. Hartman, Assistant Solicitor General, for Petitioner Attorney General of the State of New York as Statutory Intervenor.Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C., Jeremy M. Creelan, Elizabeth Valentina, Carletta F. Higginson, Matthew W. Alsdorf, Joshua A. Block, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY, Adam H. Morse, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Burt Neuborne, Deborah Goldberg, James J. Sample Aziz Huq, David Gans, New York, NY, Kent A. Yalow1tz, Glynn K. Spelliscy, Joshua Brook, J. Alex Brophy, Yue-Han Chow, Arnold & Porter LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents.Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

The State of New York requires that political parties select their nominees for Supreme Court Justice at a convention of delegates chosen by party members in a primary election. We consider whether this electoral system violates the First Amendment rights of prospective party candidates.

I
A

The Supreme Court of New York is the State's trial court of general jurisdiction, with an Appellate Division that hears appeals from certain lower courts. See N.Y. Const., Art. VI, §§ 7, 8. Under New York's current Constitution, the State is divided into 12 judicial districts, see Art. VI, § 6(a); N.Y. Jud. Law Ann. § 140 (West 2005), and Supreme Court Justices are elected to 14–year terms in each such district, see N.Y. Const., Art. VI, § 6(c). The New York Legislature has provided for the election of a total of 328 Supreme Court Justices in this fashion. See N.Y. Jud. Law Ann. § 140–a (West Supp.2007).

Over the years, New York has changed the method by which Supreme Court Justices are selected several times. Under the New York Constitution of 1821, Art. IV, § 7, all judicial officers, except Justices of the Peace, were appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate. See 7 Sources and Documents of the U.S. Constitutions 181, 184 (W. Swindler ed.1978). In 1846, New York amended its Constitution to require popular election of the Justices of the Supreme Court (and also the Judges of the New York Court of Appeals). Id., at 192, 200 (N.Y. Const. of 1846, Art. VI, § 12). In the early years under that regime, the State allowed political parties to choose their own method of selecting the judicial candidates who would bear their endorsements on the general-election ballot. See, e.g., Report of Joint Committee of Senate and Assembly of New York, Appointed to Investigate Primary and Election Laws of This and Other States, S. Doc. No. 26, pp. 195–219 (1910). The major parties opted for party conventions, the same method then employed to nominate candidates for other state offices. Ibid.; see also P. Ray, An Introduction to Political Parties and Practical Politics 94 (1913).

In 1911, the New York Legislature enacted a law requiring political parties to select Supreme Court nominees (and most other nominees who did not run statewide) through direct primary elections. Act of Oct. 18, 1911, ch. 891, § 45(4), 1911 N.Y. Laws 2657, 2682. The primary system came to be criticized as a “device capable of astute and successful manipulation by professionals,” Editorial, The State Convention, N.Y. Times, May 1, 1917, p. 12, and the Republican candidate for Governor in 1920 campaigned against it as “a fraud” that “offered the opportunity for two things, for the demagogue and the man with money,” Miller Declares Primary a Fraud, N.Y. Times, Oct. 23, 1920, p. 4. A law enacted in 1921 required parties to select their candidates for the Supreme Court by a convention composed of delegates elected by party members. Act of May 2, 1921, ch. 479, §§ 45(1), 110, 1921 N.Y. Laws 1451, 1454, 1471.

New York retains this system of choosing party nominees for Supreme Court Justice to this day. Section 6–106 of New York's election law sets forth its basic operation: Party nominations for the office of justice of the supreme court shall be made by the judicial district convention.” N.Y. Elec. Law Ann. § 6–106 (West 2007). A party is any political organization whose candidate for Governor received 50,000 or more votes in the most recent election. § 1–104(3). In a September “delegate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
112 cases
  • Correll v. Herring, Civil Action No. 3:16CV467
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • July 11, 2016
    ...that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform." New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres , 552 U.S. 196, 202, 128 S.Ct. 791, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008) (internal citations omitted); see also California Democratic Party v. Jones , 530 U.S. 567, 575, ......
  • Fitzgerald v. Alcorn
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • January 19, 2018
    ...that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform." N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202, 128 S.Ct. 791, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008). Nevertheless, the Constitution does not grant political parties free reign in determining their nomin......
  • De La Fuente v. Simon, A19-1994
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • March 18, 2020
    ...State’s interest in "ensuring the fairness of the party’s nominating process" is elevated. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. López Torres , 552 U.S. 196, 203, 128 S.Ct. 791, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008). Having allowed the parties a role in determining which candidates have access to the ballot for ......
  • Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • November 30, 2021
    ..."[n]one of our cases establishes an individual's right to have a ‘fair shot’ at winning[.]" New York State Bd. of Elections v. Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205, 128 S.Ct. 791, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008). Nor does the constitution.¶62 Article I, Section 22 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: "[t]he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles

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