Supreme court has ruled on delegates being forced to vote for a candidate in 1980

robertwerden

robertwerden

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
2,222
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1631
Cousins v. Wigoda, the Court held that the "First Amendment freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State." Granting states the power to place delegates in a National Convention over party objections to how they were selected would impair the right of political parties to associate with whom they wish, especially when non-party members could influence the interests of the delegates. Justice Lewis Powell argued in his dissent that Wisconsin's "compelling interest" to involve non-affiliated voters in the primary justified this burden on the freedom of association, although the majority held that this could be accomplished without intruding upon internal party rules.
Click to expand...
 
Did you actually read the report?

I can't find anything in there that supports the following statement (which is currently the title of this thread):
Supreme court has ruled on delegates being forced to vote for a candidate in 1980
Click to expand...
 
I'm by no means a lawyer, but does Granting states the power to place delegates in a National Convention over party objections to how they were selected would impair the right of political parties to associate with whom they wish coupled with what Ben Swan says about rule 38 mean that delegates are in fact unbound?
 
Last edited:
Could someone with more legal/political understanding than myself explain how exactly this ruling could potentially affect how the RNC plays out?
 
_pauladin_ said:
Could someone with more legal/political understanding than myself explain how exactly this ruling could potentially affect how the RNC plays out?
Click to expand...

It says a state cannot override rules of the national party when the national rules explicitly exclude participation from a group of individuals. It doesn't apply to the current situation at all.
 
LostNFoundNTx said:
It says a state cannot override rules of the national party when the national rules explicitly exclude participation from a group of individuals. It doesn't apply to the current situation at all.
Click to expand...
So then Rule 38 will work with the GOP saying that no delegates are bound.
 
If I'm reading it right, it is basically saying that because a state requiring delegates to vote a certain way could essentially be someone from one party intervening in the processes of another party, it can't be done. IE, a primarily Dem state forcing Repub delegates in the primaries to vote for the weakest candidate at the convention, etc etc.

So while it applies, the ruling clearly wasn't made for the reason we would apply it. If challenged by the Goldman Sachs lawyers, and it probably would be, I doubt it would be held up.
 
KEEF said:
So then Rule 38 will work with the GOP saying that no delegates are bound.
Click to expand...

If the national rules were intended to definitively exclude binding of delegates, they wouldn't include all the numerous other places referring to state binding rules. At best, Rule 38 will prove open to some level of interpretation but it's definitely not "clear" in saying delegates are not bound.
 
LostNFoundNTx said:
If the national rules were intended to definitively exclude binding of delegates, they wouldn't include all the numerous other places referring to state binding rules. At best, Rule 38 will prove open to some level of interpretation but it's definitely not "clear" in saying delegates are not bound.
Click to expand...

It actually doesn't matter. The delegates on the floor determine how the rules are interpreted, because they are the convention. They can vote on it as our State's representatives.

It's that way with the credentialing committee too, and the GOP rules mention it. You can try to get the credentialing committee to work out a problem with fraud in delegate selection, but the floor can vote on it too. They are the GOP at that point. Elected representatives in congress always have more power than busy bodies.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is the first Amendment. Come on we are the Constitutional experts here, and we missed the entire point of the Constitution as upheld by this ruling is, no one can force anyone not to say they support Ron Paul, prevent them from gathering at the convention, or prevent them from demonstrating.
This is a constitutional argument that we are in charge of the way we vote.
 
Actually, this is a much harder issue. There have been several cases around and past that time regarding party officials. Generally, the Supreme Court does not like to interfere with the party's processes. However, the court has had no problem interpreting such policies when cases arise. Also, historically there were "white primaries" the courts have stepped in to say no to that.

The courts generally try to leave the association rights alone if the process is fair and does not violate any other rights. There also must be a state action. Your own neighborhood book club can be as unfair, arbitrary, or corrupt as it wants to be. If you would like more information, I can pm you some case citations. However, discussing it here is long and tangential.
 
robertwerden said:
Yes it does, it has everything to do with it.
Being bound is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

No it isn't because no one's requiring that you be bound. If you don't want to be bound to Romney, they'll gladly (even prefer to) send someone in your place who is fine with it.
 
Robert Werden, no. Bound delegates do not violate the first amendment. The RNC is a private party and can compel speech. The first amendment issue comes from whether or not the government can tell a private party how to associate.
 
Ok, so the government can't tell a private party how to associate. Doesn't that scratch all of the state laws people are saying lets them be bound? So then it's down to party rules...which we could change with the numbers at the convention, and which we have a GOP official on the record saying they can't force anyone to vote a certain way?

So where does that leave us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Ron Paul Institute (RPI) for Peace and Prosperity Conference 2024
Replies
7
Views
7K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Occam's Banana
The Twitter Files - Brazil
2 3
Replies
58
Views
12K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
dannno
About Time for a Black Supreme Court Justice
Replies
6
Views
1K
luctor-et-emergo
luctor-et-emergo
osan
Brunson v. Adams: Read This Most Interesting Case
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
jbnevin
jbnevin
PAF
Another Phony Conservative Judge Nominated To The Supreme Court
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
Back
Top