Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut

Background

The dispute was between the Republican Party of Connecticut, which adopted a 1984 rule letting independent (unaffiliated) voters participate in Republican primaries for federal and statewide offices, and Connecticut’s Secretary of the State, who enforces §9-431. That state statute required primary voters to be registered members of the party. The Party sued after the legislature declined to change the statute; lower courts ruled for the Party and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether requiring primary voters to be party members unconstitutionally burdens a party’s right to choose who may join and select its candidates. Applying First Amendment associational principles, the Court found the Party’s associational interest substantial and rejected the State’s asserted justifications — administrative cost, prevention of “raiding,” voter confusion, and protecting party government — as insufficiently strong as applied here. The Court therefore held the statute unconstitutional as applied to the Party’s rule. The Court also held that the Constitution’s voter-qualification clauses apply to primaries but do not require perfect symmetry between federal and state primary qualifications in this case.

Real world impact

The decision permits the Connecticut Republican Party to implement its rule allowing independents to vote in federal and statewide primaries despite §9-431, immediately affecting who may vote in those primaries and how parties build electoral coalitions. The ruling does not mean all closed-primary laws are invalid in every circumstance; the Court stressed that different facts or different party rules could justify state limits. Public funding of primaries and the state's interest in orderly elections remain considerations in future disputes.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Stevens, Scalia, the Chief Justice, and Justice O'Connor dissented in parts. Justice Stevens argued the Qualifications Clauses require federal and state voter qualifications to match and would have struck down the Party rule on that basis. Justice Scalia warned the decision overstates the associational interest and would allow the State to protect the party membership and require democratic selection by party members.