Actually you are simply wrong. Not a little wrong, but 9 Supreme Court Justices wrong. You want direct democracy (i.e. the candidate running delegates) when the state of new york provides represenative democracy (i.e. unpledged delegates). Lopez Torres did not a single petition signature for delegate to be “pledged” to her, but still ended up with approximately 1/3 of the vote at the conventions she lost. This is because enrolled members of the party can run as unpledged delegates in an assembly district. Some delegates supported her, just not enough to win. These delegates to not represent Lopez Torres or any other candidate, but rather represent their assembly district at the convention. What you want Richard is for Lopez Torres and other candidates to be able to take their case directly to the voters, but that is simply not represenative democracy.

So, I will say it one more time the reason that the court discussed 500 signatures (rather then the fantasy number of thousands) is because the only position that rank-and-file members have to select are their delegates.

Remember Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, etc… all agreed with Scalia that the correct number was 500 signatures. And if you actually read the transcript of oral argument, you’ll understand that this was viewed as a no-brainer. So, I guess the constitution does not stop states from enacting stupid laws, but it also doesn’t stop the Brennan Center from bringing stupid cases.

(2) The state decides whether parties are required to nominate candidates, and, if so, which method (s) of nomination the parties may use.

(3) In all but nine states, the voter’s choice of party on nominating day is publicly recorded.

(1) is not determinable, but is typically the basis for continuing ballot access. So shouldn’t the nominating process be as accessible to those persons as voting in the general election?

(2) if it is those who participate in the primaries, how can they decide not to have a primary?

(3) what if there is no party registration?

“To be sure, we have, as described above, permitted States to set their faces against ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents, such as primaries. But to say that the State can require this is a far cry from saying that the Constitution demands it.”

The US Constitution requires that Representatives be elected. State laws requires candidates to be nominated. But does the US Constitution require that the candidates be nominated via direct party primary elections, even in areas of single party dominance? No. And even if they were nominated by primaries, it would not mean that a Representative was chosen by the people, since a party primary has an exclusive electorate.

So how is this different from the case of Superior Court judges in New York? The NY Constitution requires them to be elected by the voters, and they are. Lopez Torres sought election in 2003 and lost.

Richard: I don’t see where the 305 delegates is coming from. The Federal District Court decision says that there were 124 delegates from 24 AD. The plaintiff’s brief says that Lopez Torres would have had to run 127 delegate candidates.

Richard S: Breyer only joined Part II of Kennedy’s opinion, which was the generalized rant about electing judges at all. Part I was the part where Kennedy said he would have dissented if not for the opportunity to petition to get on the general election ballot.

Since the Supreme Court in _White v. Republican Party of Minn._ overturned restrictions on political speech by judicial candidates, it appears that establishment interest groups — especially within the legal profession — have been steadily aligning against popular judicial elections and in favor of appointment by elected politicians advised by “expert” panels.

New York’s process is neither, but the court may have been reluctant to impose a popular election process when such processes have become so unpopular among people of the justices’ social milieu.