October Term 2007 · Docket 06-766

Can New York force parties to use primaries for judicial nominations?

New York mandates party primaries for judicial nominations. Challengers claim this rule burdens voter participation.

Official caption
New York State Board of Elections, ET AL. v. Margarita Lopez Torres, ET AL.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Olson argued the primary process discouraged qualified candidates.

    Mr. Olson claimed the process spawned expensive and corrupting fundraising.

    Mr. Rossman stated the signature requirement was no barrier to participation.

    Mr. Schwarz argued the district court found severe burdens on insurgents.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

New York requires political parties to select judicial candidates via primary. Challengers argue this rule burdens voter participation. The state claims the rule prevents corruption.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 3, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

New York wants the Court to uphold its mandatory primary rule.

Challengers want the Court to strike down the mandatory primary rule.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

New York argues the rule prevents corrupt fundraising practices.

Challengers argue the rule imposes severe burdens on voters.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kennedy asked if burdensome registration requirements violate primary openness.

Justice Scalia asked if voluntary party adoption of primaries would also be unconstitutional.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines state power over judicial candidate selection. It balances party autonomy against voter access. The outcome shapes how states manage judicial elections.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON