Replies

what is the exact name of the case you mentioned? the arkansas case? Do you really think the texas section 172 requiring primary election could be overturned

I'll have to do some research to find it, but yes - I do think that the Republican Party could wage a successful challenge to the Texas laws on the grounds that they are a private organization. It could also be argued that the prcoess of regulating the party's nominating process is an infringement upon the free speech of the party itself.

"I'll have to do some research to find it, but yes - I do think that the Republican Party could wage a successful challenge to the Texas laws on the grounds that they are a private organization. It could also be argued that the prcoess of regulating the party's nominating process is an infringement upon the free speech of the party itself."

I am not as hopeful. I cant find any case law overturning
primary election law. delegation selectoin to a convention is much more narrow than nomination by primary.

I did find this - McConnell v FEC, and you know how 1st amendment rights of parties fared there:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/fec/mcconnellfec050203jhop.pdf

OTOH, there *is* hope if this is Texas statute, and we have the Texas lege on our side: We could add a provision that allows for party selection "if there is clear voter error that puts the election result in question as to being a true reflection of informed voter choice". But whether that could be done in a timely fashion ... nope.

grepping around ... i keep getting a missouri ballot-instruction case ...

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-929/1999-0929.mer.ami.html

Nor does Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), support the State's position. In that case, the Court upheld a state law that allowed political parties to require that candidates for the position of presidential elector in a party primary pledge, if elected, to support the national party's nominees for President and Vice President. (The party would not certify a candidate for a place on the primary ballot unless he made such a pledge.) The Court rejected the contention that the law violated the Twelfth Amendment in that it constrained electors' discretion to vote for President according to their own judgment. The Court stressed, however, that the purpose of the state law was to strengthen the political party system, see id. at 221-222, 226 n.14, which the Court has long recognized as a legitimate objective of state regulation over elections.19

19 The law under review in Ray was similar to laws protecting political parties against raiding, which the Court has upheld on several occasions. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at 439; Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973).

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-929/1999-0929.mer.ami.pdf

not finding what i need to find (sigh) ... it seems it could be repaired with some change to Texas election code, but too late for that. 172 is clear, if you get more than 20% of the governorship vote, you use a primary to select nominees.

I would think it would be upheld. I dunno.