The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Employment Discrimination

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

In California, candidates for public office can gain access to the general ballot by winning a qualified political party's primary. In 1996, voter approved Proposition 198 changed California's partisan primary from a closed primary, in which only a political party's members can vote on its nominees, to a blanket primary, in which each voter's ballot lists every candidate regardless of party affiliation and allows the voter to choose freely among them. The candidate of each party who wins the most votes is that party's nominee for the general election. The California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party have historically prohibited nonmembers from voting in their party's primary. Each political party filed suit against Bill Jones, the California Secretary of State, alleging that the blanket primary violated their First Amendment right of association. Jones countered that a blanket primary will intensify the election and allow for better representation in elected office. Siding with Jones, the District Court held that the primary's burden on the parties' associational rights was not severe and was justified by substantial state interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Clements v. Fashing

No details yet.

Cook v. Gralike

In the wake of U.S Term Limits v. Thornton, Missouri voters adopted an amendment to Article VIII of their State Constitution, which "instructs" each Member of Missouri's congressional delegation "to use all of his or her delegated powers to pass the Congressional Term Limits Amendment" set forth in section 16 of the Article. The Article also directs the Missouri Secretary of State to determine whether a statement reflecting a candidate's position on term limits should be placed by his or her name on the general election ballot. Don Gralike, a non-incumbent House of Representatives candidate, brought suit to enjoin the Secretary from implementing the Article. The District Court, granting Gralike summary judgment, found that Article VIII infringed upon the Qualifications Clauses of Article I of the Federal Constitution by creating additional qualifications for Congress and that the Article burdened a candidate's First Amendment right to speak freely on the issue of term limits. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

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

Under Minnesota law, candidates for political office are prohibited from appearing on more than one party's ballot. When the Twin Cities Area New Party, a chapter of the national New Party, nominated someone for state representative who was already another political party's candidate, Minnesota election officials declined its petition. When the New Party challenged Minnesota's election laws the District Court upheld their constitutionality, but was reversed by the state's Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Williams v. Rhodes

No details yet.