Stassen For President Citizens Committee v. Jordan
Decision Date | 24 April 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 1028,1028 |
Citation | 84 S.Ct. 1195,12 L.Ed.2d 184,377 U.S. 927,377 U.S. 914 |
Parties | STASSEN FOR PRESIDENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE v. Frank M. JORDAN, Secretary of State of California |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of California.
The motions of Janice C. Herrera and Thomas N. Burbridge, Jr., for leave to file briefs, as amicus curiae, are granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
I would have granted certiorari in this case as the Journal entry for April 24, 1964, shows; and I file this statement of reasons pursuant to the reservation made at the time.
Page 927-Continued
It is now settled, after a period of some uncertainty (cf. Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232, 250, 41 S.Ct. 469, 472, 65 L.Ed. 913), that a primary election for representatives for the Congress is a part of the election process guaranteed by Art. I, §§ 2 and 4 of the Constitution (United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368); and the same reasoning applies to primary elections for Senators pursuant to the Seventeenth Amendment. Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 468, 73 S.Ct. 809, 812, 97 L.Ed. 1152; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380, 83 S.Ct. 801, 808, 9 L.Ed.2d 821.
Opinions may be filed in due course.
We deal here not with the primary election for either members of Congress or the Senate but with the nominating process for a primary election1 in which convention delegates favorable to a particular presidential candidate are chosen, the convention choice ultimately to compete for President in an election under Article II
of the Constitution—a procedure that Congress has regulated in detail. See 3 U.S.C. § 1 et se .
The Court in the Classic case said:
313 U.S., AT 316-317, 61 S.Ct. at 1038.
The 'mode of choice' (id., 313 U.S. at 316, 61 S.Ct. at 1038) in California for Presidential candidates is first the nominating petition, second the primary, third, the convention, and fourth, the general election. That fact that the 'mode of choice' is enlarged to four stages is irrelevant to the constitutional purpose to protect 'the free choice' of the people (ibid.) in federal elections.
California, zealous to protect that right, creates the presumption that signatures on a petition are signatures of bona fide electors. Elections Code § 6087.2
In this case, however, the presumption is defeated, not because the signatories to the nominating petitions are found to be unqualified but for reasons that relate solely to the administrative convenience of the county clerks. They certify as qualified voters only those that their office has indexed; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laughlin v. State of Florida
...section denied them equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We noted probable jurisdiction, 377 U.S. 914, 84 S.Ct. 1178, 12 L.Ed.2d 185. We deal with the single issue of equal protection and on this basis set aside these It is readily apparent that § 798.05 trea......
-
State v. Simon
... ... We have therefore requested the Criminal Practice Committee of the Supreme Court to consider the matter and evaluate ... ...
- State v. Harper
-
Buras v. Orleans Parish Democratic Executive Committee
...Rouge, 217 La. 926, 47 So.2d 718; Cf. dissenting opinion to refusal of Certiorari, Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan, Secretary of State of California, 377 U.S. 927, 84 S.Ct. 1195, 12 L.Ed.2d 293; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821; Terry v. Adams, 3......