World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

California Democratic Party v. Jones

California Democratic Party v. Jones
Argued April 24, 2000
Decided June 26, 2000
Full case name California Democratic Party, et al. v. Bill Jones, Secretary of State of California, et al.
Citations 530 U.S. 567 (more)
120 S. Ct. 2402; 147 L. Ed. 2d 502; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 4303; 68 U.S.L.W. 4604; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5083; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 6777; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3867; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 479
Prior history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Concurrence Kennedy
Dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg (part I)
Laws applied
California's prop. 198

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.


  • Prior history 1
  • Case 2
  • See also 3
  • External links 4

Prior history

In California, candidates for public office can gain access to the general ballot by winning a qualified political party's primary. In 1996, voter approved Proposition 198 changed California's partisan primary from a closed primary, in which only a political party's members can vote on its nominees, to a blanket primary, in which each voter's ballot lists every candidate regardless of party affiliation and allows the voter to choose freely among them. The candidate of each party who wins the most votes is that party's nominee for the general election. A blanket primary differs from an open primary in that in an open primary, even though voters are not required to declare party affiliation and are given a ballot listing all candidates of all parties, the voter is restricted to voting for the candidates of only one party for all races on the ballot. In a blanket primary, the voter is free to cross party lines from one race to the next. The California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party have historically prohibited nonmembers from voting in their party's primary. Each political party filed suit against Bill Jones, the California Secretary of State, alleging that the blanket primary violated their First Amendment right of association. Jones countered that a blanket primary will intensify the election and allow for better representation in elected office. Siding with Jones, District Judge David F. Levi (now Dean of Duke Law School) held that the primary's burden on the parties' associational rights was not severe and was justified by substantial state interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.


California Democratic Party v. Jones presented the following question: Does California's voter-approved Proposition 198, which changes its partisan primary from a closed primary to a blanket primary, violate political parties' First Amendment right of association?

In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by—those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary."

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Stevens wrote: "This Court's willingness to invalidate the primary schemes of 3 States and cast serious constitutional doubt on the schemes of 29 others at the parties' behest is an extraordinary intrusion into the complex and changing election laws of the States."

See also

External links

Works related to California Democratic Party v. Jones at Wikisource

  • ^ 530 U.S. 567 (Text of the opinion on
  • Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.