Omar Bennett
The activities of political parties are protected under the First Amendment, which allows them to assert a freedom of association claim. This means that political parties can decide who may join the organisation or be excluded, and how they conduct their internal affairs. The Supreme Court has also said that states may protect political parties to ensure the stability of the political system, and to avoid confusion or deception. However, the Supreme Court has rejected legislation that requires the surrender of constitutional rights as a condition for attaining a governmental benefit.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Stability of the political system | Avoiding confusion or deception |
| Avoiding frivolous or fraudulent candidacies | Avoiding funding hopeless candidacies with large sums of public money |
| Avoiding fostering proliferation of splinter parties | Protecting the freedom of association |
| Preferred ballot access to established parties | |
| Restrictions to special statuses or benefits |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The First Amendment protects the activities of political parties
- The Supreme Court has said that states may protect political parties to assure the stability of the political system
- The Supreme Court has rejected legislation that requires the surrender of constitutional rights as a condition for attaining a governmental benefit
- The Constitution has been interpreted to allow preferred ballot access to established parties
- The Fifteenth Amendment opened up political parties to government regulation
The First Amendment protects the activities of political parties
Political 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. 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, while requiring others to gain ballot placement by obtaining petition signatures equivalent to five percent of those eligible to vote in the prior election.
In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court recognised that political expenditures constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. However, the Court nonetheless upheld the presidential election campaign fund act's limits on political party expenditures for nomination conventions and on candidate spending in presidential nomination and general election campaigns subsidised by federal money.
Smoke Detectors: Fire Protection System Component?
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court has said that states may protect political parties to assure the stability of the political system
The activities of political parties enjoy significant protection under the First Amendment. For example, parties generally are 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 rights of third parties to have access to the ballots is one First Amendment issue in this area.
In Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983), the Court held that states may not protect established parties by setting early filing deadlines that bar independent candidates arising from opposition to the platforms or candidates of major parties, when those become known. 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 twenty percent or more of the vote in the prior election, while requiring others to gain ballot placement by obtaining petition signatures equivalent to five percent of those eligible to vote in the prior election.
Constitution's Slaveholder Safeguards: Intentional or Unintentional?
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court has rejected legislation that requires the surrender of constitutional rights as a condition for attaining a governmental benefit
The activities of political parties are protected under the First Amendment. For example, parties can assert a freedom of association claim, arguing that they have the right to 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 to assure the 'stability of the political system', to avoid confusion or deception, and to 'avoid frivolous or fraudulent candidacies prompted by short-range political goals, pique, or personal quarrel'.
In Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983), the Court held that states may not protect established parties by setting early filing deadlines that bar independent candidates arising from opposition to the platforms or candidates of major parties. 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, while requiring others to gain ballot placement by obtaining petition signatures equivalent to five percent of those eligible to vote in the prior election.
The Supreme Court has also undercut the promise of Section 1983 of the 14th Amendment in several ways, including by adopting and expanding qualified immunity for individual officials, rejecting vicarious liability of local governmental entities, and holding state governmental entities absolutely immune from liability for damages.
Permanent Residents: Constitutional Protections for Americans?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![[7.5"x3.75",] Protect Democracy Sticker Democrat Sticker Political Bumper Stickers Democracy Party Gifts US Flag Decal Gifts Decorations for Car Truck Windows](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61O4NeDNXtL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The Constitution has been interpreted to allow preferred ballot access to established parties
The Constitution has been interpreted to allow preferred ballot access to established political parties. 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. This interpretation of the Constitution has been justified on the basis of "stability of the political system", to avoid confusion or deception, and to "avoid frivolous or fraudulent candidacies prompted by short-range political goals, pique, or personal quarrel".
The activities of political parties enjoy significant protection under the First Amendment. For instance, parties generally are 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. The rights of third parties to have access to the ballots is one First Amendment issue in this area.
However, the Supreme Court has also rejected legislation that requires the surrender of constitutional rights as a condition for attaining a governmental benefit. In Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983), the Court held that states may not protect established parties by setting early filing deadlines that bar independent candidates arising from opposition to the platforms or candidates of major parties. Although it recognised in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that political expenditures constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the presidential election campaign fund act's limits on political party expenditures for nomination conventions and on candidate spending in presidential nomination and general election campaigns subsidised by federal money.
Drug Use and Constitutional Rights: What's Protected?
You may want to see also
The Fifteenth Amendment opened up political parties to government regulation
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude". The Amendment opened up political parties to government regulation.
The activities of political parties enjoy significant protection under the First Amendment. For instance, parties generally are 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. It is not always clear, however, who, under the law, is the “political party” and who can assert First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court has said that states may protect political parties in order to assure "stability of the political system", to avoid confusion or deception, and to "avoid frivolous or fraudulent candidacies prompted by short-range political goals, pique, or personal quarrel". Congress, in providing public financing of parties and candidates, can seek to avoid funding hopeless candidacies with large sums of public money or fostering proliferation of splinter parties.
In Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983), the Court held that states may not protect established parties by setting early filing deadlines that bar independent candidates arising from opposition to the platforms or candidates of major parties, when those become known. The Constitution has been interpreted to allow preferred ballot access to established parties. Hence, 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, while requiring others to gain ballot placement by obtaining petition signatures equivalent to five percent of those eligible to vote in the prior election.
One further source of governmental authority to regulate political parties is the power to attach restrictions to special statuses or benefits accorded to candidates and parties under federal and state laws. Generally, the Supreme Court has rejected legislation that requires the surrender of constitutional rights as a condition for attaining a governmental benefit. Although it recognised in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that political expenditures constitute protected speech under the first amendment, the Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the presidential election campaign fund act's limits on political party expenditures for nomination conventions and on candidate spending in presidential nomination and general election campaigns subsidised by federal money.
Foreign Nationals: Constitutional Rights and Protections?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Supreme Court has said that states may protect political parties to assure the "stability of the political system" and avoid confusion, deception, and frivolous or fraudulent candidacies.
The First Amendment protects the activities of political parties. 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.
While the First Amendment protects the activities of political parties, the Supreme Court has rejected legislation that requires the surrender of constitutional rights as a condition for attaining a governmental benefit.
In Jennes v. Fortson (1971), the Supreme 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 Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983), the Court held that states may not protect established parties by setting early filing deadlines that bar independent candidates arising from opposition to the platforms or candidates of major parties.
