Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia

1996-03-27

Headline: Political parties must seek federal preclearance before imposing convention fees, and voters can sue under the Voting Rights Act, forcing parties who use state ballot-access privileges to clear such rules.

Holding: The Court held that when a political party exercises state-authorized powers over nominations, its changes like a delegate registration fee must be precleared under section 5, and individuals may sue under section 10.

Real World Impact:

Requires parties to seek federal approval before changing nomination rules.
Allows individual voters to sue over poll-tax style fees.
May increase preclearance filings and federal review workload.

Topics: party convention fees, voting rights, preclearance, poll taxes, ballot access

Summary

Background

In 1994 the Republican Party of Virginia required a $35 or $45 registration fee for people to become delegates at its statewide nominating convention. Over 14,000 voters paid the fee. Three voters who either refused to pay or needed a loan to pay sued, arguing the fee violated the Voting Rights Act and constitutional protections. A three-judge District Court dismissed their claims and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a political party’s change must get federal preclearance (advance approval) under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and whether individuals can sue under section 10. The majority said yes. It relied on the Justice Department regulation that covers party changes when a party performs a public electoral function and acts under state authority. Because Virginia gives major-party nominees automatic ballot access, the Court concluded the Party was exercising state-authorized power and so its filing fee was a voting-related change. The Court also relied on the Act’s definition of “voting” (which mentions party office), the historical record Congress considered (including the Bingham amendment), and prior cases about party nominating processes. On section 10 the Court found private suits appropriate, pointing to precedent and later amendments that presupposed private enforcement.

Real world impact

The ruling means parties in covered jurisdictions must seek federal approval before changing nomination rules that affect voters’ access. Voters may bring suits over poll-tax-style fees. The decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings, so the issue will proceed in lower courts.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring opinion stressed historical reasons for coverage but limited broader holdings. Dissents argued the statutory text and First Amendment concerns bar treating private party conduct as state action and warned about prior-restraint effects.