Navigate

  •  
Case Summaries for the '07 season of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta

NY v. Lopez Torres

Knight v. Commissioner

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. U.S.

Wright v. Van Patten

Arave v. Hoffman

Kimbrough v. U.S.

Gall v. U.S.

Watson v. U.S.

Logan v. U.S.

CSX Transportation v. Georgia State Board of Equalization

Board of Ed. of N.Y. v. Tom F.

Allen v. Siebert

  •  

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL. v. MARGARITA LOPEZ TORRES, ET AL.

On appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Who is who?
  • New York State Board of Elections enforces New York's elections laws.
  • Margarita Lopez Torres is a civil court judge who couldn't get her party's nomination for the Supreme Court in her district.
  • et al. is all those other interested people that are a part of the lawsuit but take too long to write out properly.

    (Non-lawyers note: New York's Supreme Courts are trial courts, not appellate courts like the United States Supreme Court.)

    How did they get to the Supreme Court?
    It all started with an election of Lopez Torres to a civil court judgeship in 1992. As is typical for judges, she sought to be elected to a more prestigious supreme court position. But, she didn't get her party's nomination. She says the party leadership didn't like her, and, because, party leadership is very important in New York's nominating process, she sued New York to reduce the influence of party leadership in the election of judges.

    She won her case in federal district court and the court of appeals. New York appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Who won?
    New York: 9-0 to reverse the lower court. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Although, Justice Kennedy came to the conclusion a different way than the majority.

    How did the Court decide?
    Lets establish some basics on Constitutional Law. First, we do not have a constitutional "two party" system. The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about political parties. The reason is deceptively simple: political parties aren't government.

    Second, the Constitution concerns the structure of federal government - (and state government through the 14th amendment) it defines what powers government has and what powers it doesn't have.

    Finally, a suit to enforce the limits on government under the Constitution must be asserted against the government. If the suit isn't against the government, then there is no Constitutional right.

    In this instance Lopez Torres is complaining that her political party has loaded the dice against her. Political parties aren't government, and she cannot assert a constitutional right against her political party. So, the only thing that kept the Supreme Court Justices from giggling like school children and reversing the lower court is that New York has decided to make political parties and important part of the process New York uses to elect judges.

    New York required political parties to select judges based on a district convention. Justice Scalia describes it this way:

    In a September "delegate primary," party members elect delegates from each of New York's 150 assembly districts to attend the party's judicial convention for the judicial district in which the assembly district is located. An individual may run for delegate by submitting to the Board of Elections a designating petition signed by 500 enrolled party members residing in the assembly district, or by five percent of such enrolled members, whichever is less. These signatures must be gathered within a 37-day period preceding the filing deadline, which is approximately two months before the delegate primary. The delegates elected in these primaries are uncommitted; the primary ballot does not specify the judicial nominee whom they will support.

    The nominating conventions take place one to two weeks after the delegate primary. Each of the 12 judicial districts has its own convention to nominate the party's Supreme Court candidate or candidates who will run at large in that district in the general election. The general election takes place in November. The nominees from the party conventions appear automatically on the general-election ballot. They may be joined on the general-election ballot by independent candidates and candidates of political organizations that fail to meet the 50,000 vote threshold for "party" status; these candidates gain access to the ballot by submitting timely nominating petitions with (depending on the judicial district) 3,500 or 4,000 signatures from voters in that district or signatures from five percent of the number of votes cast for Governor in that district in the prior election, whichever is less.

    And you thought the electoral process for president is complicated.

    New York (a state government) made political parties an important part of electing judges. The government action here is to establish the way a political party selects its nominees for judgeship.

    From Lopez Torres's perspective, because the state set up the system, the system should be fair. A fair system ought not allow party bosses have the ability to heavily influence the outcome. The Supreme Court's perspective differs.

    The Supreme Court decided that for this to violate the Constitution, New York's enacted process must violate the Constitution. And it is not because: 1) There's nothing inherent in a nominating convention that makes it unconstitutional. Nominating conventions (instead of primaries) were the standard way political parties have designated their nominees for over a hundred years. 2) New York's nominating conventions do not prevent Lopez Torres from running for office, being nominated, nor direct that the choice of the party bosses will be the nominee. When designating an election system, the New York government hasn't done anything that violates the First Amendment right to freedom of association.

    A Constitutionally fair system doesn't mean the candidate has a right to a "fair shot" at winning. Figuring out whether someone has a "fair shot" of winning is not consistent the federal court's role in interpreting Constitutional commands.

    Was that Lopez Torres's only argument?
    Lopez Torres also argued that in reality, the nominating convention is it. Once nominated, a single party always wins in certain districts. Voters in that district are more tied to party loyalty than to comparisons between candidates. Which is true, but not unconstitutional. Candidates from the parties and qualifying independents are on the general election ballot. The citizens have the freedom to vote for anyone that they choose. The Supreme Court will not require more.

    What's the principle?
    The Constitution does not guarantee the right to a fair chance of being nominated to be on the ballot for a particular political party.

    This decision was 9-0 for reversal, did all the Justices agree?
    Not exactly. Justice Stevens wrote a concurring opinion:
    While I join JUSTICE SCALIA'S cogent resolution of the constitutional issues raised by this case, I think it appropriate to emphasize the distinction between constitutionality and wise policy. Our holding with respect to the former should not be misread as endorsement of the electoral system under review, or disagreement with the findings of the District Court that describe glaring deficiencies in that system and even lend support to the broader proposition that the very practice of electing judges is unwise. But as I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws."

    Clarinet Esq. would join that concurrence (as did Justice Souter).

    Justice Kennedy found another reason to agree with the majority. He reasoned that New York's petition process provides another route to the general election ballot. And that process provides a measure of fairness that the nominating conventions might not. So, all in all, the entire process is fair.

    And finally, Justice Kennedy (with Justice Breyer in agreement) comments on the state of judicial elections. Obiter Dictum, of course, but friendly dictum. Judicial elections, when they are used, ought to provide for a respected judiciary that protects the rule of law. He explains that good judges come from political will:

    Rule of law is secured only by the principled exercise of political will. If New York statutes for nominating and electing judges do not produce both the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of the law, they ought to be changed and to be changed now. But, as the Court today holds, and for further reasons given in this separate opinion, the present suit does not permit us to invoke the Constitution in order to intervene.

    What word in the opinion sounded the most made-up?
    Associational, which was used a handful of times in the opinion, has the honor of sounding invented. Even if it isn't.

    At 13 letters it is also one of the longest words in the opinion - along with requirements and the ever present 16-letter unconstitutional.

    What was the best rhetorical question?
    "Does not the dominance of two parties similarly stifle competing opinions?"

    And the answer is:
    Yes, just like one party popular dominance, two party dominance stifles competition (just ask a green party member). But, two-party dominance still does not violate the Constitution.

    © Clarinet Esq. | not valid xhtml 1.0 | Design by wfiedler adapted by Clarinet Esq.