This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The district court enjoined the entirety of Initiative 872, finding that its party‑preference provisions were not severable under Washington’s test for severability.
Background and question before the Court
Initiative 872 repealed the old state law that required parties to use the state primary to select their nominees and is silent on how parties will designate their nominees.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens asked whether the challenge to Initiative 872 is a facial challenge.
What each side argues
Washington State Grange (Petitioner)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
State (Respondent)
The State argues that there is a legitimate interest in providing voters information about a candidate’s positions and linkages to a political party by allowing a candidate to state a party preference.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter questioned whether the distinction between a candidate’s personal party preference and formal party affiliation is recognized in practice.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter followed up asking if the distinction is a working way of thinking in the real world.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter raised a hypothetical about a ballot with no party identification and asked whether that would be equally problematic.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy asked whether the State could articulate any legitimate interest for requiring party labels.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The State contends that the outcome affects the ability of voters to receive information about a candidate’s positions and party linkages, which is a legitimate state interest.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 6ca78763ac8058cb0a62-r1-ae3e4ca442983506.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.