Foster v. Love

• Citation: 118 S.Ct. 464,139 L.Ed.2d 369,522 U.S. 67
• Decision Date: 02 December 1997
• Docket Number: 96670
• Parties: Murphy J. FOSTER, Jr., Governor of Louisiana, et al., Petitioners, v. G. Scott LOVE, Paul S. Bergeron, Kathleen B. Balhoff, and Bennie Baker-Bourgeois
• Court: United States Supreme Court

522 U.S. 67

118 S.Ct. 464

139 L.Ed.2d 369

Murphy J. FOSTER, Jr., Governor of Louisiana, et al., Petitioners,

v G. Scott LOVE, Paul S. Bergeron, Kathleen B. Balhoff, and Bennie Baker-Bourgeois.

No. 96-670.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Oct. 6, 1997.

Decided Dec. 2, 1997.

Syllabus ^*

The Elections Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, see Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1279, 39 L.Ed.2d 714, but grants Congress "the power to override state regulations'' by establishing uniform rules for federal elections, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 832-833, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1868-1869, 131 L.Ed.2d 881. One such congressional rule sets the date of the biennial election for the offices of United States Senator, 2 U.S.C. §1, and Representative, §7, and mandates holding all congressional and presidential elections on a single November day, 2 U.S.C. §§1, 7; 3 U.S.C. §1. Since 1978, Louisiana has held in October of a federal election year an "open primary'' for congressional offices, in which all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot and all voters are entitled to vote. If a candidate for a given office receives a majority at the open primary, the candidate "is elected'' and no further act is done on federal election day to fill that office. Since this system went into effect, over 80% of the State's contested congressional elections have ended as a matter of law with the open primary. Respondents, Louisiana voters, challenged this primary as a violation of federal law. Finding no conflict between the state and federal statutes, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners, the State's Governor and secretary of state. The Fifth Circuit reversed.

Held: Louisiana's statute conflicts with federal law to the extent that it is applied to select a congressional candidate in October. Pp. ___-___.

(a) The issue here is a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal statutes. There is no colorable argument that §7 goes beyond the ample limits of the Elections Clause's grant of authority to Congress. In speaking of "the election'' of a Senator or Representative, the federal statutes plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make the final selection of an officeholder; and by establishing "the day'' on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say. P. ___.

(b) A contested selection of candidates for a congressional office that is concluded as a matter of law before the federal election day, with no act in law or in fact to take place on the date chosen by Congress, clearly violates §7. Louisiana's claim that its system concerns only the manner, not the time, of an election is at odds with the State's statute, which addresses timing quite as obviously as §7 does. A federal election takes place in Louisiana before federal election day whenever a candidate gets a majority in the open primary. Pp. ___-___.

(c) This Court's judgment is buttressed by the fact that Louisiana's open primary has tended to foster both evils identified by Congress as reasons for passing the federal statute: the distortion of the voting process when the results of an early federal election in one State can influence later voting in other States, and the burden on citizens forced to turn out on two different election days to make final selections of federal officers in presidential election years. Pp. ___-___.

90 F.3d 1026, affirmed.

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IV, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and STEVENS, O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.

Richard P. Ieyoub, Baton Rouge, LA, for petitioners.

M. Miller Baker, Washington, DC, for respondents.

Justice SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court. ^**

Under 2 U.S.C. §§1 and 7, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in an even-numbered year "is established'' as the date for federal congressional elections. Louisiana's "open primary'' statute provides an opportunity to fill the offices of United States Senator and Representative during the previous month, without any action to be taken on federal election day. The issue before us is whether such an ostensible election runs afoul of the federal statute. We hold that it does.

I

The Elections Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides that " [t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.'' The Clause is a default provision; it invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, see Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1279, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974), but only so far as Congress declines to preempt state legislative choices, see Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 24, 92 S.Ct. 804, 810, 31 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972) ("Unless Congress acts, Art. I, §4, empowers the States to regulate''). Thus it is well settled that the Elections Clause grants Congress "the power to override state regulations'' by establishing uniform rules for federal elections, binding on the States. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 832-833, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1868-1869, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995). " [T]he regulations made by Congress are paramount to those made by the State legislature; and if they conflict therewith, the latter, so far as the conflict extends, ceases to be operative.'' Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 384, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879).

One congressional rule adopted under the Elections Clause (and its counterpart for the Executive Branch, Art. II, §1, cl. 3) sets the date of the biennial election for federal offices. See 2 U.S.C. §§1, 7; 3 U.S.C. §1. Title 2 U.S.C. §7 was originally enacted in 1872, and now provides that " [t]he Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.'' This provision, along with 2 U.S.C. §1 (setting the same rule for electing Senators under the Seventeenth Amendment) and 3 U.S.C. §1 (doing the same for selecting presidential electors), mandates holding all elections for Congress and the Presidency on a single day throughout the Union.

In 1975, Louisiana adopted a new statutory scheme for electing United States Senators and Representatives. In October of a federal election year, the State holds what is popularly known as an "open primary'' for congressional offices, La.Rev.Stat. Ann. §18:402(B)(1) (West Supp.1997), in which all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot, and all voters, with like disregard of party, are entitled to vote, §18:401(B) (West 1979). If no candidate for a given office receives a majority, the State holds a run-off (dubbed a "general election'') between the top two vote-getters the following month on federal election day. §18:481 (West 1979). But if one such candidate does get a majority in October, that candidate "is elected,'' §18:511(A) (West Supp.1997), and no further act is done on federal election day to fill the office in question. Since this system went into effect in 1978, over 80% of the contested congressional elections in Louisiana have ended as a matter of law with the open primary. ¹

Respondents are Louisiana voters who sued petitioners, the State's Governor and secretary of state, challenging the open primary as a violation of federal law. The District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners, finding no conflict between the state and federal statutes, whereas a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that Louisiana's system squarely "conflicts with the federal statutes that establish a uniform federal election day.'' 90 F.3d 1026, 1031 (1996). We affirm.

II

The Fifth Circuit's conception of the issue here as a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal statutes is exactly right. For all of petitioners' invocations of state sovereignty, there is no colorable argument that §7 goes beyond the ample limits of the Elections Clause's grant of authority to Congress. ² When the federal statutes speak of "the election'' of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder (subject only to the possibility of a later run-off, see 2 U.S.C. §8). ³ See N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 433 (C. Goodrich & N. Porter eds. 1869) (defining "election'' as " [t]he act of choosing a person to fill an office''). By establishing a particular day as "the day'' on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say.

While true that there is room for argument about just what may constitute the final act of selection within the meaning of the law, our decision does not turn on any nicety in isolating precisely what acts a State must cause to be done on federal election day (and not before it) in order to satisfy the statute. Without paring the term "election'' in §7 down to the definitional bone, it is enough to resolve this case to say that a contested selection of candidates for a congressional office that is concluded as a matter of law before the federal election day, with no act in law or in fact to take place on the date chosen by Congress, clearly violates §7. ⁴

Petitioners try to save the Louisiana system by arguing that,...