Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party
United States Supreme Court
520 U.S. 351 (1997)
- Written by Philip Glass, JD
Facts
Minnesota forbade candidates from receiving nominations from multiple parties (called fusion candidacies). Historically, minor parties and candidates engaged in fusion candidacies to expand their reach. Sometimes, fusion candidacies aimed to factionalize major parties. Most states abandoned and ultimately prohibited fusion candidacies. Minnesota's law, which sought to avoid the adverse effects of fusion candidacies, applied to all parties. No intrusion into internal party apparatuses occurred. Third parties and independent candidates could still run in Minnesota's elections. The Court heard the claim of the New Party (plaintiff) that Minnesota's law violated its freedom of association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Dissent (Souter, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
