Legal Opinion
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 28, 1997No. 95-1608PublishedCited by 623 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist
Most States prohibit multiple-party, or “fusion,” candidacies for elected office.1 The Minnesota laws challenged in *354this case prohibit a candidate from appearing on the ballot as the candidate of more than one party. Minn. Stat. §§204B.06, subd. 1(b), and 204B.04, subd. 2 (1994). We hold that such a prohibition does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Respondent is a chartered chapter of the national New Party. Petitioners are Minnesota election officials. In April 1994, Minnesota State Representative Andy Dawkins was running unopposed in the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Branti v. FinkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Anderson v. CelebrezzeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Williams v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Burdick v. TakushiSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Storer v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by623 opinions
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican PartySupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Purcell v. GonzalezSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- California Democratic Party v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Randall v. SorrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
618 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.