Citation network
Morse Vs. Republican Party of VA.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 02, 1995
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Morse v. RepublicanSearch
-
Party of Va. - 517 U.S. 186 (1995) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Morse Et Al. V. RepublicanSearch
-
promulgated by the Attorney General of the United States and under this Court's summary decision in Williams v. DemocraticSearch
-
at the convention and certified the nominee for automatic placement on the general election ballot. Cf. Smith v. AllwrightSearch
-
election, including changes in the composition of the electorate that votes for a particular office. See, e. g., Allen v. StateSearch
-
covers nonprimary nomination methods is also supported by Whitley v. WilliamsSearch
-
Consideration of the historical background which informed the 89th Congress when it passed the Act-particularly Terry v. AdamsSearch
-
poll tax. Evaluation of congressional action must take into account its contemporary legal context. See, e. g., Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see, e. g., Chisom v. RoemerSearch
-
and 5. See Allen v. StateSearch
-
and 10 require, a three-judge District Court was convened to consider the statutory claims. See Morse v. OliverSearch
-
conduct of primary elections. Second, it relied on our summary affirmance of the District Court's holding in Williams v. DemocraticSearch
-
sets forth the formula for identifying the jurisdictions in which such discrimination had occurred, see South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
by the Attorney General or approved by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See Allen v. StateSearch
-
Failure to obtain either judicial or administrative preclearance 'renders the change unenforceable.''' Clark v. RoemerSearch
-
U. S. 646 , 652 (1991) (quoting Hathorn v. LovornSearch
-
the delegate qualifications set by the Party for the right to choose that nominee. Smith v. AllwrightSearch
-
is 199 In concluding that the regulation applies to the Party, we are guided by the reasoning of Smith v. AllwrightSearch
-
Rotunda, Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Political Parties in the Wake of Cousins v. WigodaSearch
-
mandated by any right of the Party to demand placement on the ballot. Contrary to appellees, cases such as Williams v. RhodesSearch
-
U. S. 23 (1968), Jenness v. FortsonSearch
-
U. S. 431 (1971), and American Party of Tex. v. WhiteSearch
-
affecting voting at a party convention.18 We are satisfied 17 JUSTICE THOMAS argues that our decision in Smith v. AllwrightSearch
-
turned on that factor. Only nine years before Smith, the Court had surveyed the same statutory regime in Grovey v. TownsendSearch
-
not the extent of state regulation, but the Court's understanding, based on its intervening decision in United States v. ClassicSearch
-
Rice v. ElmoreSearch
-
accord, Baskin v. BrownSearch
-
F.2d 391 (1949). The principal opinion in Terry v. AdamsSearch
-
changes by 201 that the Department's interpretation of its own regulation is correct. See Stinson v. UnitedSearch
-
Bowles v. SeminoleSearch
-
we conclude that the regulation required preclearance of the Party's delegate filing fee. The decision in Williams v. DemocraticSearch
-
and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 1541 (1975). In Mac Guire v. AmosSearch
-
See Vance v. UnitedSearch
-
Williams v. DemocraticSearch
-
law was correct. Our summary affirmance no doubt accepted that court's view of the relevant state law. Cf. Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
Section 20 See, e. g., Fortune v. KingsSearch
-
on which to rest future decisions. Anderson v. CelebrezzeSearch
-
limit individual voters' access to the ballot in jurisdictions having authority to register voters, see United States v. SheffieldSearch
-
Allen v. StateSearch
-
Presley v. EtowahSearch
-
see also Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. WhiteSearch
-
its impact on voting in the general election has been a recurring theme in our cases interpreting the Act. See Chisom v. RoemerSearch
-
to the outcome in the general election was recognized as long ago as Justice Pitney's concurrence in Newberry v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial