New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres
United States Supreme Court
552 U.S. 196 (2008)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
Justices on the New York Supreme Court (NYSC) were elected in each of the state’s 12 judicial districts. Before 1921, NYSC candidates were nominated by a direct primary. After 1921, the state required political parties to nominate candidates at a convention held by delegates in each judicial district. The delegates were elected in 150 assembly districts by submitting a petition with 500 party member signatures or five percent of the party’s enrollment. Lopez Torres (plaintiff) was the Democratic Party’s nominee to the civil court for Kings County. After winning the election in 1992, party leaders demanded that Lopez Torres make patronage hires, which she refused. The party’s leadership opposed Lopez Torres at the nominating conventions for the NYSC in 1997, 2002, and 2003. Lopez Torres sued the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBE) (defendant), seeking a declaration that New York’s convention system violated her First Amendment rights and a preliminary injunction returning the direct primary election for nominees to the NYSC. The District Court granted the injunction and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.