The Constitution And Political Parties: Protected Speech?

Political parties enjoy significant protection under the First Amendment, including the right to freedom of association. This means that parties can decide who may join the organisation or be excluded, and how they conduct their internal affairs. The Supreme Court has said that states may protect political parties in order to assure stability of the political system, and to avoid confusion or deception. However, it is not always clear who, under the law, is the political party and who can assert First Amendment rights.

Explore related products

Political Parties and the Constitution (New Essays on American Constitutional History)

$18.12

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Political Parties before the Constitution (Published by the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture and the University of North Carolina Press)

$29.99 $60

The Constitution Needs a Good Party: Good Government Comes from Good Boundaries

$28.28 $13.99

The Democrat Party Hates America

$12.09 $30

Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America (draft proposal)

$6.4 $8

The First Amendment protects the activities of political parties

The Constitution has also been interpreted to allow preferred ballot access to established parties. In Jennes v. Fortson (1971), the Court sustained a statute giving automatic ballot access to parties that had obtained 20% or more of the vote in the prior election, while requiring others to gain ballot placement by obtaining petition signatures equivalent to 5% of those eligible to vote in the prior election.

However, in Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Court rejected statutory schemes so complex or burdensome as to make it virtually impossible for any but the Democratic and Republican parties to obtain ballot access. The sweeping associational rights of political parties recognised in Cousins and LaFollette have sometimes been regarded as limited by the Supreme Court's reference to the special "national interest" in presidential nominating conventions.

Political parties have the right to freedom of association

The Supreme Court has justified this protection by arguing that it is necessary to assure the "stability of the political system" and to avoid confusion or deception. For example, in Jennes v. Fortson (1971), the Court sustained a statute giving automatic ballot access to parties that had obtained twenty percent or more of the vote in the prior election.

However, it is not always clear who, under the law, is the "political party" and who can assert First Amendment rights. In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Court rejected statutory schemes that made it virtually impossible for any but the Democratic and Republican parties to obtain ballot access.

The Court has also left open the question of whether national political parties are subject to constitutional restraints in their methods of delegate selection or allocation, and whether they can be regulated by Congress.

The Supreme Court has said that states may protect political parties to ensure stability

The Constitution has been interpreted to allow preferred ballot access to established parties. For example, in Jennes v. Fortson (1971), the Court sustained a statute giving automatic ballot access to parties that had obtained twenty percent or more of the vote in the prior election. In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Court rejected statutory schemes so complex or burdensome as to make it virtually impossible for any but the Democratic and Republican parties to obtain ballot access.

The activities of political parties enjoy significant protection under the First Amendment. Parties are generally able to assert a freedom of association claim, arguing that they, not the government, have the right to decide who may join the organisation or be excluded, and how they conduct their internal affairs. However, it is not always clear who, under the law, is the "political party" and who can assert First Amendment rights.

The Court has also left open the question of "whether national political parties are subject to the principles of the reapportionment decisions, or other constitutional restraints, in their methods of delegate selection or allocation".

Explore related products

The United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights with Amendments: Large Print Edition (Annotated)

$9.99

The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

$13.65 $19

Relic: How Our Constitution Undermines Effective Government--and Why We Need a More Powerful Presidency

$19.79 $26.99

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: The Constitution of the United States of America

$9.99 $9.99

Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era

$22.34 $29

Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics

$15.3 $32.5

Ballot access is given to established parties

The Constitution has been interpreted to allow preferred ballot access to established parties. In Jennes v. Fortson (1971), the Court sustained a statute giving automatic ballot access to parties that had obtained 20% or more of the vote in the previous election. However, other parties were required to gain ballot placement by obtaining petition signatures equivalent to 5% of those eligible to vote in the prior election. This interpretation of the Constitution has been justified by a wide array of governmental interests, including the stability of the political system and the avoidance of confusion or deception.

The activities of political parties enjoy significant protection under the First Amendment. For example, parties can generally assert a freedom of association claim, arguing that they, not the government, have the right to decide who may join the organisation or be excluded, and how they conduct their internal affairs. However, it is not always clear who, under the law, is the "political party" and who can assert First Amendment rights. The rights of third parties to have access to the ballots is one First Amendment issue in this area.

In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Court rejected statutory schemes so complex or burdensome as to make it virtually impossible for any but the Democratic and Republican parties to obtain ballot access. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that ballot access is not restricted to only established parties, as it could potentially violate the First Amendment rights of third parties.

While the Constitution does provide some protection for political parties, there are still questions surrounding the extent of this protection. For example, it is unclear whether national political parties are subject to the principles of reapportionment decisions or other constitutional restraints in their methods of delegate selection or allocation. Additionally, the Court has not decided whether national political parties and their nominating conventions are regulable by Congress or another body.

The Court has rejected statutory schemes that make it virtually impossible for parties other than the Democrats and Republicans to obtain ballot access

The activities of political parties are protected under the First Amendment, which includes the right to freedom of association. The Supreme Court has ruled that states may protect political parties to ensure the stability of the political system, and to avoid confusion or deception.

The Constitution has been interpreted to allow preferred ballot access to established parties. In Jennes v. Fortson (1971), the Court upheld a statute that gave automatic ballot access to parties that had obtained 20% or more of the vote in the previous election. However, in Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Court rejected statutory schemes that made it virtually impossible for any parties other than the Democrats and Republicans to obtain ballot access. This was because the schemes were deemed so complex and burdensome that they infringed on the rights of third parties to have access to ballots.

The Court has also left open the question of whether national political parties are subject to constitutional restraints in their methods of delegate selection and allocation. It remains undecided whether national political parties and their nominating conventions can be regulated by Congress.

Frequently asked questions