Citation network
Clingman Vs. Beaver
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 2005
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Clingman V. BeaverSearch
-
Timmons v. TwinSearch
-
Cities Area New Party , 520 U. S. 351 , 358. In Tashjian v. RepublicanSearch
-
in the primary process. Such minor barriers between voter and party do not compel strict scrutiny. See Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
Nader v. SchafferSearch
-
candidacies by spurned primary contenders, Storer v. BrownSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
voter registration laws. Those claims were neither raised nor decided below, see, e.g., Cooper Industries, Inc. v. AviallSearch
-
and respondents have pointed to no unusual circumstances warranting their consideration now, see Taylor v. FreelandSearch
-
to an unwanted party affiliation, see Kusper v. PontikesSearch
-
opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Clingman v. BeaverSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Clingman V. BeaverSearch
-
Of the United States No. 04-37 Michael Clingman, Secretary, Oklahoma State Election Board, Et Al., Petitioners V. AndreaSearch
-
Tashjian v. RepublicanSearch
-
s members, see NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
to interfere with the LPO by restricting activities central to its purpose, see NAACP v. ClaiborneSearch
-
to disqualify the LPO from public benefits or privileges, see Keyishian v. BoardSearch
-
cf. Democratic Party of United States v. WisconsinSearch
-
But not every electoral law that burdens associational rights is subject to strict scrutiny. See, e.g. , Nader v. SchafferSearch
-
generally, require that voters take some action to participate in the primary process. See, e.g. , Rosario v. RockefellerSearch
-
S. 780 , 788 (1983). These minor barriers between voter and party do not compel strict scrutiny. See Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
quoting Ray v. BlairSearch
-
depend in large part on accurate voter registration rolls. See, e.g. , Council of Alternative Political Parties v. StateSearch
-
cf. Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
Though the LPO has unsuccessfully challenged one of these provisions before, see Rainbow Coalition of Okla. v. OklahomaSearch
-
state interests. We ordinarily do not consider claims neither raised nor decided below, Cooper Industries, Inc. v. AviallSearch
-
slip op., at 10) (quoting Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. MinetaSearch
-
s electoral code this late in the day, see Taylor v. FreelandSearch
-
setting primary on last Tuesday of July). Clingman v. BeaverSearch
-
Opinion of O'Connor, J. Clingman V. BeaverSearch
-
in the electoral process, California Democratic Party v. JonesSearch
-
U. S. 567 , 575 (2000) (quoting Tashjian v. RepublicanSearch
-
S. 208 , 216 (1986)), and a vital forum for expressive association among voters and political parties, see Kusper v. PontikesSearch
-
see also Democratic Party of United States v. WisconsinSearch
-
severe burdens on associational rights must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. Timmons v. TwinSearch
-
minor party candidates, for whom support may not coalesce until comparatively late in the election cycle. See Anderson v. CelebrezzeSearch
-
s justifications would be required. Clingman v. BeaverSearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Clingman V. BeaverSearch
-
to nominate a candidate for office. Cf. Burdick v. TakushiSearch
-
In Tashjian v. RepublicanSearch
-
See Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. AviallSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial