The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Employment Discrimination Decisions

American Party Of Texas v. White

No details yet.

Anderson v. Celebrezze

No details yet.

Brockington v. Rhodes

No details yet.

Bullock v. Carter

No details yet.

Burdick v. Takushi, Director Of Elections Of Hawaii

No details yet.

California Democratic Party v. Jones

Does California's voter approved Proposition 198, which changes its partisan primary from a closed primary to a blanket primary, violate political parties' First Amendment right of association?

Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with -- to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by -- those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary." Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. "This Court's willingness to invalidate the primary schemes of 3 States and cast serious constitutional doubt on the schemes of 29 others at the parties' behest is," Justice Stevens wrote, "an extraordinary intrusion into the complex and changing election laws of the States."

Clements v. Fashing

No details yet.

Cook v. Gralike

Is Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution, as amended in 1996 to prompt the adoption of a "Congressional Term Limits Amendment" to the Federal Constitution, consistent with the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, Section 4, Clause 1)?

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution, which required the placement of negative labels next to state candidates for federal office, who failed to comply with voter-mandated support of federal term limits, was an unconstitutional attempt to regulate electoral outcomes, rather than a permissible regulation of state elections. Justice Stevens explained for the Court that Article VIII is designed to favor candidates who are willing to support a term-limits amendment and, "[t]hus, far from regulating the procedural mechanisms of elections, Article VIII attempts to 'dictate electoral outcomes.' Such 'regulation' of congressional elections simply is not authorized by the Elections Clause."

Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party

No details yet.

Jenness v. Fortson

No details yet.

Lubin v. Panish

No details yet.

Mandel v. Bradley

No details yet.

Moore v. Ogilvie

No details yet.

Munro v. Socialist Workers Party

No details yet.

Norman v. Reed

No details yet.

Storer v. Brown

No details yet.

Tashjian v. Republican Party Of Connecticut

No details yet.

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party

Did Minnesota's anti-fusion laws, banning a candidate from appearing on more than one party's ballot, violate the association rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

No. In its 6-to-3 opinion, the majority weighed the character and magnitude of the burden imposed by anti-fusion laws on association rights against Minnesota's stated interest in the necessity of such laws. It upheld Minnesota's interest in ballot integrity and political stability. According to the Court, prohibiting political parties from naming another party's candidate as their own did not overly burden their association rights since they were still free to endorse the other party's candidate. The only thing they could not do was "fuse" another party's candidate to their own petitions.

Williams v. Rhodes

No details yet.