Michele L. Timmons, Acting Director, Ramsey County Department of Property Records and Revenue, et al. v. Twin Cities Area New Party (520 U.S. 351)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 28, 1997 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 520 U.S. 351 · 117 S. Ct. 1364
- Decided
- April 28, 1997
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Most States prohibit multiple-party, or “fusion,” candidacies for elected office. The Minnesota laws challenged in this case prohibit a candidate from appearing on the ballot as the candidate of more than one party. Minn. Stat. §§204B.06, subd. 1(b), and 204B.04, subd. 2 (1994). We hold that such a prohibition does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Respondent is a chartered chapter of the national New Party. Petitioners are Minnesota election officials. In April 1994, Minnesota State Representative Andy Dawkins was running unopposed in the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party’s (DFL) primary. That same month, New Party members chose Dawkins as their candidate for the same office in the November 1994 general election. Neither Dawkins nor the DFL objected, and Dawkins signed the required affidavit of candidacy for the New Party. Minn. Stat. § 204B.06 (1994). Minnesota, however, prohibits fusion candidacies. Because Dawkins had already filed as a candidate for the DFL’s nomination, local election officials refused to accept the New Party’s nominating petition. The New Party filed suit in United States District Court, contending that Minnesota’s antifusion laws violated the party’s associational rights under the First -and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court…
Excerpt of a 36,145-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.