Supremes vote 7-2 to reverse the 9th and uphold WA blanket primary system

[selador]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/06-713.pdf


interestingly, thomas wrote the majority

scalia and kennedy dissented.

[rox63]

1. What was this about?

I'm not familiar with the case.

[selador]

4. in brief

the question was whether the WA law that requires a candidate be identifiyed on the ballot by their SELF-DESIGNATED party preference violates the candidates rights under the first amendment.

the decision states that “political party cannot prevent a candidate who is unaffiliated with, or even repugnant to, the party from designating it as his party of preference.”

[MrCoffee]

7. The political parties brought suit claiming a violation of right to associate

The claim was that allowing any yahoo dingbat to declare themselves (D), (R), (L), (G) on the ballot violated the political parties right not to associate with that person. The argument is that the law would, in effect, make the primary winner the de facto nominee.

[The Stranger]

2. Thanks for linking to the actual opinion.

Very, very convenient.

[selador]

6. y/w

i'm a firm believer in source documents

[MrCoffee]

3. It's a sound decision to uphold a stupid law

Washington's primary system sucks.

[selador]

5. yea

there is an old sayin' in constitutional law

that basically says (my interpretation)

sucky laws are not necessarily unconstitutional and good laws are not necessarily constitutional.

[MrCoffee]

8. So I just read Roberts' concurrence...LOL!

Another little Roberts v. Scalia tussle (3rd page "Justice Scalia complains that...") He's making a habit of putting these snide little remarks about Scalia in his concurrences.