October Term 2007 · Docket 06-713
Can a state force political parties to share ballot access with non-endorsed candidates?
Washington voters adopted a top-two system that lets parties choose nominees but forces them to share the ballot with outsiders.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The state advocate said voters followed Supreme Court guidance. They adopted a top-two system to balance interests.
The party advocate said the law converts a core right into a mere endorsement. It undermines the party's ability to win public support.
Justice Scalia noted a candidate can join a party. He said a party cannot disassociate from that candidate.
Justice Roberts asked if the described ballot format was accurate. He sought clarity on the final ballot appearance.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 23-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 1, 2007.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-21
What each side wants
The state wants to keep the top-two system. It wants to force parties to share the ballot with outsiders.
The party wants to stop the forced sharing. It wants to control who appears on its ballot line.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 23-11
What each side says
The state argues the law follows Supreme Court guidance. It claims the system respects party autonomy while allowing outsider access.
The party argues the law strips its core rights. It claims the state turned its right to choose nominees into a mere endorsement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 23-11
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if the ballot shows party preference for a candidate.
Justice Alito asked if the initiative aimed to change the system minimally after a prior case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-47
Why it matters
This case defines the balance between party control and voter access. It shapes how states design primary elections. It affects the power of political parties to select their own nominees.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 23-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 23-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.