ACLJ Files Suit Against ‘Open Primary’ Question in Oklahoma
Caroline MolloyFor years, the ACLJ has engaged in election law cases – from representing parties to filing amicus briefs – across the nation, including at the U.S. Supreme Court. The First Amendment provides critical protections for speech and expression, and this certainly includes the right of political association.
That right is under attack again. So today, on behalf of our clients, the Oklahoma Republican Party (OKGOP) and an Oklahoma voter, and working with our local counsel, Trevor Pemberton, we just filed a legal action at the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, challenging a measure that would violate the First Amendment rights of political parties and their members across the state.
The case law is clear: The First Amendment protects the rights of association of political parties. As we argued in our brief: “‘Unsurprisingly,’ the Supreme Court’s ‘cases vigorously affirm the special place the First Amendment reserves for, and the special protection it accords, the process by which a political party selects a standard bearer.’” Brief, at 6 (quoting California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 575 (2000). While a state may impose certain types of rules and regulations concerning how a political party places its candidates on the ballot, it cannot impose rules that coerce a political party to associate (or disassociate) with a candidate against its will.
Whether based on First Amendment free speech and association, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, or even a misuse of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Disqualification Clause,” the ACLJ has taken these constitutional battles head-on. We represented the Colorado Republican Party from the trial court all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Trump v.Andersoncase, ensuring President Trump could not be barred from the ballot by biased state officials. We also represented multiple state Republican Parties in related cases aimed at blocking President Trump from ballots across the country, including Oklahoma. We recently represented Nevada’s Green Party in an effort to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to protect its rights to put its candidate on the Nevada ballot. We’ve filed multiple amicus briefs (you can see some recent ones here), even going back to the pivotal Bush v. Gore case in 2001.
A common theme in these cases is voter choice – and a critical aspect of that is political parties’ and Americans’ ability to communicate their values with and to choose and present their candidates to voters, to associate freely in furtherance of those values and candidates, and to place their candidates on the ballot free of unlawful manipulation by adversaries. Unfortunately, election lawfare continues, and we must remain vigilant.
The measure we just challenged is Initiative Petition 448/State Question 836 (IP 448). As in many other states, citizens in Oklahoma may utilize the initiative petition process (often referred to elsewhere as a referendum) to propose new laws or amendments to the Oklahoma Constitution. In this case, the measure’s proponents filed a proposed initiative petition that would, essentially, strip from the state’s political parties the ability to ensure candidates running under the party’s name are, in fact, bona fide adherents to that party’s platform, meet that party’s requirements, and have followed that party’s rules in the process.
