Daniel P. Tokaji is the Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Professor of Constitutional Law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
A constitutional standard for partisan gerrymandering is the holy grail of election law. For decades, scholars and jurists have struggled to find a manageable standard for claims of excessive partisanship in drawing district lines. Most of these efforts have focused on the equal protection clause. But as Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the First Amendment provides a firmer doctrinal basis for challenging partisan gerrymandering. An established line of precedent understands voting as a form of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. These cases offer a nuanced standard that would avoid the undesirable result of rendering any consideration of partisan consequences unconstitutional.
The right of expressive association
There is an obvious difficulty in relying on the First Amendment in partisan-gerrymandering cases: The Supreme Court has never considered voting a form of protected speech. It has, however, long recognized that voting is a form of protected association, at least in certain contexts. Before getting to those cases, its helpful to examine the roots of the right of expressive association.
The original associational-rights cases involved groups like the NAACP and the Communist Party that were extremely unpopular one might even say persecuted in many parts of the country. In NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, for example, the Supreme Court invalidated a requirement that the NAACP disclose its membership list. Justice John Marshall Harlan IIs opinion for the court remarked that the freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the liberty assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. In other words, expressive association is a necessary corollary of free speech.
The right of expressive association is closely linked to the First Amendments prohibition on content and viewpoint discrimination. As Justice Antonin Scalia put it in one of his last dissenting opinions, the First Amendment is a kind of Equal Protection Clause for ideas. It prohibits the government from abusing its authority to suppress disfavored points of view. Most importantly, it restricts the dominant political groups authority to diminish the voices of those who might challenge their grip on power.
Thus, in the first generation of association cases, disfavored groups like the NAACP and the Communist Party relied on the First Amendment to prohibit the government from taking adverse action against them and their members. These cases rest partly on the individual liberty interest identified in NAACP v. Alabama. But theyre also grounded in a larger vision of how democracy should function.
A leading example is the line of patronage cases that began with Elrod v. Burns, in which the Supreme Court struck down the practice of firing public employees who werent members of the Democratic Party, which controlled Cook County, Illinois. After describing the harm to individual employees, the plurality turned to systemic concerns arising from this practice: It is not only belief and association which are restricted where political patronage is the practice, wrote Justice William Brennan. The free functioning of the electoral process also suffers. Discrimination against non-party members tended to starve political opposition, thus tip[ping] the electoral process in favor of the incumbent party. In other words, party-based discrimination distorts the political process, entrenching the dominant party in power while subordinating its chief rival.
Voting as association
Partisan gerrymandering effects a comparable systemic harm, albeit through a different mechanism. By manipulating district lines, the dominant party can entrench itself in power even when the political winds shift. The increasingly sophisticated technology that line-drawers have at their disposal exacerbates the problem. It allows the dominant party to capture a large percentage of seats while ensuring that its majority will hold in both bad times and good.
Thats true not only in Wisconsin, from which Gill v. Whitford emerges, but in other states that would be competitive but for gerrymandering. Take my own state of Ohio. Although Ohio is a consummate purple state in presidential elections, Republican mapmakers drew lines there in 2011 that give their party a supermajority of districts three-quarters of the states congressional delegation and roughly two-thirds of its state legislative districts. These districts were drawn with the goal of creating a firewall that would ensure Republican control even in a strong Democratic year. And theyve been a spectacular success, ensuring Republican control of the Ohio state legislature throughout the current decade. Because they diminish the power of the non-dominant party in a manner thats both substantial and enduring, excessive partisan gerrymanders violate the right of expressive association.
Still, one might argue that compelled disclosure and patronage are very different from redistricting. In the original association cases, particular individuals were harmed discouraged from or punished for affiliating with disfavored groups. Moreover, those cases dont directly involve voting. Its a leap, one might argue, to hold that the right of association is implicated when voters, candidates and parties associate through the electoral process.
As it turns out, the Supreme Court made this leap long ago. For almost a half-century, the court has recognized that voting is a form of association protected by the First Amendment. The first voting-as-association case was Williams v. Rhodes, which challenged Ohios ballot-access requirements for new political parties like George Wallaces American Independent Party. Justice Hugo Blacks opinion for the court relied on both the First Amendment right of association and equal protection to strike down this requirement. Ohios onerous rules for adding new parties to the ballot gave the two old, established parties a decided advantage plac[ing] substantially unequal burdens on both the right to vote and the right to associate. In Williams, the Supreme Court thus stressed the risk of dominant parties using voting rules to entrench themselves in power, thereby harming non-dominant parties and their supporters.
Several years later, in Anderson v. Celebrezze, the Supreme Court again relied on the right of association to invalidate another ballot-access rule in Ohio, this time one that would have kept John Anderson from running as an independent presidential candidate in 1980. Justice John Paul Stevens opinion for the majority recognized that theres no litmus-paper test to separate valid and invalid restrictions on voting and association. Rather, the court should weigh the character and magnitude of the burden on voting and association against the states asserted interests. Although reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions can usually be justified by important regulatory interests, a stronger justification is required for more serious burdens, including ones that discriminate against outsider candidates and their supporters.
A subsequent case involving write-in voting in Hawaii, Burdick v. Takushi, reaffirmed Andersons flexible standard while clarifying that strict scrutiny applies only if the burden on voting and association is severe. Other cases like Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut and Washington State Grange v. Washington Republican Party apply this standard to electoral rules that burden the associational rights of major parties and their adherents. The Anderson-Burdick balancing test is now used in constitutional challenges to a wide variety of election laws, including ballot access, blanket primaries and even voter ID. Whats not commonly recognized is that this legal standard originated in voting-as-association cases.
Applying the voting-as-association standard
Its true that the Supreme Court hasnt yet applied the Anderson-Burdick standard to partisan gerrymandering. In fact, the court has been maddeningly unclear about what legal standard should apply in these cases. But for several reasons, the standard emerging from the voting-as-association cases provides the best fit for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims.
The first is that the First Amendment right of association best captures the type of injury alleged, specifically the lasting harm to non-dominant political parties and their adherents arising from the dominant partys self-entrenchment. Expressive-association cases have long focused on such harms, not only to the non-dominant party but to our political system. By contrast, equal protection law doesnt accord any special status to political party affiliation. Unlike race or sex, party affiliation isnt a protected class under the equal protection clause.
The second advantage of relying on the established voting-as-association standard is that it focuses on effects rather than intent. Recall that the Anderson-Burdick standard requires courts to weigh the character and magnitude of the burden on voting and association against the states asserted interests. An intent to harm the non-dominant party may be relevant, but it isnt required. Thats a good thing, because intent is notoriously hard to prove or disprove, especially in redistricting cases. The Shaw v. Reno line of racial-gerrymandering cases exemplifies this difficulty. Under those cases, the pivotal question is whether race was the predominant factor in drawing a particular district. Twenty-four years after Shaw, the Supreme Court is still struggling to explain what this means. An effect-based test is preferable. Though Anderson-Burdick is hardly a bright-line rule, its balancing standard has proven manageable in other voting contexts and can be adapted to partisan-gerrymandering claims.
This brings me to a third advantage of relying on the voting-as-association cases to assess partisan gerrymandering claims: It provides a nuanced legal standard. The Anderson-Burdick balancing approach would allow lower courts to sort through the evidence, striking down the most egregious and unjustified partisan gerrymanders without categorically prohibiting any consideration of party affiliation when drawing districts. Of course, partisan-gerrymandering claims demand hard judgments. There are no bright lines here. But the legal standard that the Supreme Court has long used in voting-as-association cases provides the best fit for partisan-gerrymandering cases like Gill v. Whitford.
Posted in Gill v. Whitford, Summer symposium on Gill v. Whitford, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: Daniel Tokaji, Symposium: A path through the thicket the First Amendment right of association, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 10, 2017, 2:12 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-path-thicket-first-amendment-right-association/
- First Amendment on the street | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item - June 30th, 2020
- Taking a cellphone video of police? Theres a First Amendment for that - Seattle Times - June 30th, 2020
- First Amendment Bars California from Requiring a Proposition 65 Glyphosate Warning - JD Supra - June 30th, 2020
- Read the First Amendment | Letters To The Editor - The Central Virginian - June 30th, 2020
- First Amendment right to protest is in jeopardy in Jacksonville - The Florida Times-Union - June 30th, 2020
- Pence says First Amendment is why Trump campaign held Tulsa rally despite local health officials' warnings - Yahoo News - June 30th, 2020
- Supreme Court hands win to religious schools | TheHill - The Hill - June 30th, 2020
- Letter to the Editor: Remember and Defend the First Amendment - Dana Point Times - June 20th, 2020
- Another look at the First Amendment | Opinion - Franklin News Post - June 20th, 2020
- Death threats protected by First Amendment, attorney says - Alpena News - June 20th, 2020
- Really Pathetic: First Amendment Expert Torches DOJ Efforts to Stop John Bolton Book - Law & Crime - June 20th, 2020
- The First Amendment protects attorneys from compelled speech | TheHill - The Hill - June 17th, 2020
- Protesters are protected by the First Amendment and will not be cited any violations if they remain peaceful - WATN - Local 24 - June 17th, 2020
- Dear Journal: That's some amendment, that First Amendment; let's use it - The Daily World - June 17th, 2020
- Barr Threatens Suit To Stop Boltons Book Because The First Amendment Is, Like, More Of A Suggestion Really - Above the Law - June 17th, 2020
- NASCAR tossed out First Amendment and more letters to the editors - Chattanooga Times Free Press - June 17th, 2020
- Snap's decision to restrict Trump is within its First Amendment rights, CEO says - CNBC - June 17th, 2020
- First Amendment rights? Only for the Left - Must Read Alaska - June 17th, 2020
- "Vocational Training Is Speech Protected by the First Amendment" - Reason - June 17th, 2020
- A North Carolina professor who sparked outrage with his tweets still has his job. Why? It's called the First Amendment. - USA TODAY - June 17th, 2020
- Opinion: 1st Amendment rights apparently only apply to the left - Juneau Empire - June 17th, 2020
- If you're planning to take part in protests, know your rights. Read this. - CNN - June 17th, 2020
- Opinion: Trump's Antifa crackdown treads on First Amendment - The Detroit News - June 17th, 2020
- First Amendment Rights and Twitter, Encryption Backdoors - Security Boulevard - June 1st, 2020
- Arrest of CNN Crew in Minneapolis a 'Violation of First Amendment' - Voice of America - June 1st, 2020
- Trump, Twitter and the First Amendment - The New York Times - June 1st, 2020
- First Amendment Group Opposes Webinars On Toll Roads - WUSF News - June 1st, 2020
- ACLU issues warning to police to protect First Amendment rights of protesters - KATC Lafayette News - June 1st, 2020
- Federal, California and Local Law Enforcement's Statement on the Death of George Floyd and Riots Says They Will Continue to Work Together to Protect... - June 1st, 2020
- First Amendment Legal Expert Floyd Abrams on Trump's Chilling Executive Order Designed to Kill Free Speech - Showbiz411 - June 1st, 2020
- DC mayor institutes curfew and urges calm after weekend of unrest - KEYT - June 1st, 2020
- Open season on the free press: Journalists targeted in attacks as U.S. protests rage - Reuters - June 1st, 2020
- RCFP condemns attacks against journalists covering protests - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - June 1st, 2020
- Day 3 of protests in Portland, Oregon over death of George Floyd - KGW.com - June 1st, 2020
- As Waves of Protest Surge Across America - The New York Times - June 1st, 2020
- Trump Executive Order Violates the First Amendment - SF Bay Area Indymedia - June 1st, 2020
- DC mayor urges calm after protests nearby the White House occur for second consecutive night - CNN International - June 1st, 2020
- Man with bow is expected to be charged; Salt Lake City chief decries officer who knocked down elderly man with a cane - Salt Lake Tribune - June 1st, 2020
- Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment - EFF - May 29th, 2020
- Content Moderation, Section 230, and The First Amendment - AAF - American Action Forum - May 29th, 2020
- Times Union takes First Amendment and Journalist of the Year, 11 other awards in statewide contest - Times Union - May 29th, 2020
- First Amendment May Protect Use of Trademarks As Artistic Expression - JD Supra - May 29th, 2020
- Strictly Legal: Is Fox News entitled to First Amendment protection? - The Cincinnati Enquirer - May 29th, 2020
- Facebook Keeps Touting The First Amendment To Justify Its Content Policies - AdExchanger - May 29th, 2020
- Trump vs. Twitter | Editorials | gjsentinel.com - The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel - May 29th, 2020
- Churches respond to COVID-19, First Amendment ruling - Morganton News Herald - May 29th, 2020
- 'The First Amendment is very clear': Sheriff's Office won't break up religious services for 'NY on PAUSE' violations - The Livingston County News - May 29th, 2020
- RCFP statement on Trump's social media executive order - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - May 29th, 2020
- WashU Expert: Trump attacks on Twitter betray free speech principles - Washington University in St. Louis Newsroom - May 29th, 2020
- Reexamining the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act | Morgan Lewis - Tech & Sourcing - JD Supra - May 29th, 2020
- Going to the dogs: the Ninth Circuit's erosion of trademark rights exclusive guest post - World Trademark Review - May 29th, 2020
- First Amendment Lawyer Dismisses Trumps Claim That Twitter Is Stifling Free Speech: He Doesnt Want Critics to Have a Chance to Respond - Mediaite - May 29th, 2020
- Liberals Have Rediscovered the 10th Amendment's Value During the Coronavirus Pandemic - Reason - May 29th, 2020
- Former DNC chair Donna Brazile claims 'theres no First Amendment right to lie. Her co-hosts on The Five erupt in mockery. - TheBlaze - May 29th, 2020
- Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas calls for shrinking the First Amendment - Vox.com - May 14th, 2020
- What words make up a true threat? Well, that depends - The Mercury - May 14th, 2020
- Onslow Sheriffs department will not interfere with indoor church services - Jacksonville Daily News - May 14th, 2020
- Religious freedom is under threat in the courtroom - UPI.com - May 14th, 2020
- Neuberger Demands That Carney Lift Restrictions On Worshipping Now - First State Update - May 14th, 2020
- The First Amendment To the Constitution of The United States of America - The Suburban Times - May 11th, 2020
- Exposing Russian information operations does not violate the First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill - May 11th, 2020
- The Supreme Court Could Use the First Amendment to Unleash a Robocall Nightmare - The Atlantic - May 11th, 2020
- Divorcing couples have First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media, SJC rules - The Boston Globe - May 11th, 2020
- The Price of the First Amendment "Is That We Must Put Up With a Good Deal of Rubbish" - Reason - May 11th, 2020
- Societe Generale: Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document - GlobeNewswire - May 11th, 2020
- Governors Can't Suspend the First Amendment - Daily Signal - May 11th, 2020
- Houston strip club allowed to open, but without dancers - KHOU.com - May 11th, 2020
- Lawsuit filed against Marco Island alleges first amendment violation - Marco News - May 4th, 2020
- First amendment rights should not be suppressed, even during pandemic The News Journal - The News Journal - May 4th, 2020
- Urgent Care Doctor Silenced By Youtube Says His First Amendment Rights Have Been Attacked - Sara A. Carter - May 4th, 2020
- 'ReOpen NC' Founder Has COVID-19, Says It Is Her First Amendment Right To Infect Others - Wonkette - May 4th, 2020
- A tale of two universities and one First Amendment - OneNewsNow - May 4th, 2020
- The Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment - Business Insider - Business Insider - April 18th, 2020
- New podcast: Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds - GetReligion - April 18th, 2020
- Students Don't "Shed Their Freedom of Speech at the Schoolhouse Gate" - Reason - April 18th, 2020
- Teenager Who Shared Coronavirus Infection on Instagram Threatened With Arrest By Police, Lawsuit Says - Newsweek - April 18th, 2020
- Tea Party president says he was threatened with arrest for planning protest on Newton Green - New Jersey Herald - April 18th, 2020
- Legal expert: Trumps liberate Tweets incite insurrection and thats illegal - AlterNet - April 18th, 2020
- Lawmakers say Walz order is a violation of The First Amendment - KWLM (Willmar Radio) - April 18th, 2020
- With the public's need to know greater than ever, the D&C fights for info on outbreak - Democrat & Chronicle - April 18th, 2020