Political parties and the Supreme Court
Political parties and the Supreme Court are closely intertwined within the framework of U.S. governance, where the Court has established various rulings impacting how these parties operate. While political parties are generally treated as private associations, the Supreme Court has intervened in specific areas like ballot access, primary elections, and campaign finance regulations. For instance, in the landmark case Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Court mandated that states must provide reasonable means for third parties to access the ballot, affirming principles of equal protection under the law. Additionally, the Court has ruled on the rights of states to regulate primary elections, allowing them to set specific registration requirements, as seen in cases like Rosario v. Rockefeller (1973).
In terms of campaign finance, rulings such as Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) have reshaped the financial landscape for political parties, allowing greater spending autonomy and impacting how parties can support candidates. As the Court has evolved, particularly with recent conservative appointments, its decisions continue to influence political party operations, revealing a dynamic relationship between judicial oversight and political processes. Understanding this interplay can provide deeper insights into the regulatory environment that shapes American political engagement.
Political parties and the Supreme Court
Description: Private organizations whose aim is to elect individuals who share common beliefs to public office.
Significance: The Supreme Court regards most of the regulation of political parties to be a political question and therefore makes limited rulings in this area.
The internal decisions made by political parties, which are private associations, have largely been left alone by federal and state governments. Political parties are, however, in some ways regulated by the federal and state governments, and it is with regard to these regulations that the Supreme Court has made some rulings. The court deemed much of the regulation of parties to be a political question and, therefore, out of the court’s jurisdiction. For example, the court never ruled on the constitutionality of a primary election for selecting delegates to a national party convention. That is an act of a private association and, as such, is not subject to court supervision. In the case of political parties, it is as important to recognize what the court has not done.
Ballot Access
However, the court has made some rulings that have either involved or affected the ways in which parties operate. It ruled on ballot access, which regards the placement of a name or political party on the official ballot printed by a state for a general election. Williams v. Rhodes (1968) dealt with an Ohio law that prohibited write-in votes for president and prescribed rules that made it extremely difficult for a candidate from a third party (other than the Republican or Democratic) to get on the ballot. That law stated that if a party wanted to get its presidential candidate on the Ohio ballot, it had to get petitions signed by 15 percent of the number of people who voted in the last presidential election. It also required that those petitions be submitted by early February of an election year. Furthermore, a party seeking ballot access had to demonstrate that it had an elaborate party structure in place. This law showed tremendous favoritism to the established parties.
The court ruled that states must allow other parties a reasonable means to get on the ballot because to do otherwise violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Hugo L. Black, recognizing that most regulation of political parties is a political question, asserted that ballot access is a “justiciable controversy under the Constitution and cannot be relegated to the political arena.” Black argued in part from the First Amendment freedom of assembly. In the majority opinion, he stated that “the right to form a party means little if a party can be kept off the election ballot and thus denied an equal opportunity to win votes.” The court did not rule in this case that all parties must be given ballot access. The state has a compelling interest in reasonably limiting ballot access so that the ballot is not confusing to voters. Therefore, states can enact a threshold for ballot access.
Although political parties do not have a right to be on the ballot, all political parties are permitted to exist. For example, it was never possible in the United States to outlaw the existence of the Communist Party. The court prohibited the forced registration of members of the US Communist Party as a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination in Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1965).
Primary Elections
The court ruled that states can dictate who can vote in the primary elections of the major parties. In Rosario v. Rockefeller (1973), the court ruled that a state could require that a resident be registered in a party at least thirty days before an election. Some states have primaries in which residents can register on election day, but the court ruled that the Constitution does not require this in all states. The court recognized the power of the state legislature with regard to primary elections in Democratic Party of the United States v. LaFollette (1981). This case upheld open primaries, which allow citizens to vote in any primary, regardless of party affiliation; again, it was determined that a state may have an open primary, but the Constitution did not require one.
In California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), however, the court took on the question of California's blanket primary, in which ballots listed all candidates regardless of party, allowing voters to choose candidates from different parties for each race. The state's major political parties argued this violated their right to free association, and the court agreed in a 7–2 decision, making the blanket primary unconstitutional. Primaries were again at issue in Clingman v. Beaver (2005). The case focused on a semi-closed primary system in Oklahoma, which the Libertarian Party argued violated their freedom of expression and association by preventing members of other parties from participating in its primaries. The court ultimately ruled that there was no violation of constitutional rights in this case, as not all electoral laws causing minor burdens on the right to associate were worthy of strict scrutiny, and the primary system served various state interests.
Campaign Finance
Another important way in which the court affected the operation of political parties is in campaign finance regulation. One important campaign spending case, Buckley v. Valeo (1976), did not involve a political party but instead dealt with individual campaigns. The court ruled that some limitations on gifts made to candidates were permissible, such as $1,000 each election for a particular candidate and $5,000 each election cycle to a political action committee. The court also ruled that independent expenditures for a candidate could not be limited because such a limitation would be a violation of the First Amendment; however, Justice John Paul Stevens asserted in his opinion that “all money spent by a political party to secure the election of its candidate for the office of United States Senator should be considered a ’contribution’ to his or her campaign.” Thus Buckley v. Valeo placed a limitation on the activities of political parties with respect to individual political campaigns.
The court addressed political party spending again in Colorado Republican Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (1996). After Buckley, the Federal Election Commission made a distinction between indirect support of federal candidates and direct support of candidates. Parties were limited in how much financial support they could directly and indirectly provide a candidate. In the Colorado Republican Campaign Committee, the court struck down the restriction on indirect support of candidates; as a result, political parties could spend unlimited amounts of money on independent expenditures. Because of this decision, political parties could spend more on behalf of candidates.
After further limits on campaign finance were passed by Congress with the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the court upheld the major provisions of that law in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), though some bans on soft money were struck down. However, as the court tilted more conservative in subsequent years, the BCRA was weakened. Most notably, the controversial landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) lifted restrictions on political spending by corporations, partially overruling McConnell.
In the early 2020s, the court's majority continued to become more conservative, as Republican president Donald Trump appointed three new justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—to the bench during his 2017–21 term. Though some Republican legislators sought to eliminate the BCRA, another court ruling in 2022 removed further campaign finance restrictions but left the remainder of the law in place. This case, Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, dealt with the $250,000 cap the BCRA placed on the amount of personal campaign loan repayment contributions candidates could use following an election's conclusion. In a majority opinion for the 6–3 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that this limitation could keep some, especially novices, from attempting political candidacy and that it unjustifiably burdened First Amendment free speech.
Bibliography
Epstein, Leon D. Political Parties in the American Mold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986.
Gerstein, Josh, and Zach Montellaro. "Supreme Court Chips Away at Campaign Finance Regulation—Thanks to Ted Cruz." Politico, 16 May 2022, www.politico.com/news/2022/05/16/supreme-court-finance-regulation-ted-cruz-00032692. Accessed 8 June 2022.
Green, John C., and Daniel Shea, eds. The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties. 2d ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.
Pinaire, Brian. The Constitution of Electoral Speech Law: The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression in Campaigns and Elections. Stanford Law Books, 2008.
Rosenston, Steven, Roy Behr, and Edward Lazarus. Third Parties in America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Schultz, David. "Political Parties." The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, 2009, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1139/political-parties. Accessed 12 Oct. 2020.