California Democratic Party v. Jones

2000-06-26

Headline: Blanket primary struck down as unconstitutional, blocking California’s system that let all voters select party nominees and protecting political parties’ ability to limit who may vote in their primaries.

Holding: The Court held that California’s blanket primary unconstitutionally burdens political parties’ First Amendment right of association and struck down Proposition 198 as not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.

Real World Impact:

Prevents California's blanket primary from determining party nominees.
Strengthens parties’ control over who votes in their primaries.
Minor parties are protected from outsized influence by nonmembers.

Topics: primary elections, political parties, voting rules, First Amendment, voter participation

Summary

Background

The dispute involved four California political parties (Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom) that sued the California Secretary of State after voters approved Proposition 198. Proposition 198 changed California’s closed primary into a blanket primary where every voter sees every candidate and may vote for any candidate regardless of party. Each party had rules limiting primary participation to its members. Lower courts upheld the law, and the parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the State could force parties to have their nominees chosen by nonmembers without violating the parties’ First Amendment right to associate. The majority concluded that selecting a party’s nominee is a core associational activity. Forcing parties to accept nominees chosen by unaffiliated or rival-party voters burdens that right, because it can change who becomes the party’s standard-bearer and alter the party’s message. The Court found California’s stated goals — such as greater representativeness, voter participation, privacy, and more moderate nominees — either not compelling or achievable by less restrictive means, like a nonpartisan blanket primary. The Court therefore reversed the Ninth Circuit and struck down Proposition 198.

Real world impact

The decision prevents California’s version of a blanket primary from being used to determine party nominees. Political parties retain stronger control over who may vote in their primaries, and minor parties are shielded from outsized influence by nonmembers. States with similar laws may need to change their systems or adopt nonpartisan alternatives. The ruling may affect debates about voter participation and how states design primaries.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy agreed with the judgment but emphasized the State’s voter-participation goals and warned about campaign finance limits that could constrain party responses; Justice Stevens dissented and argued the State may expand voter participation and raised a separate Elections Clause concern for federal offices.