Supreme Court Update New York State Board of Elections v. López Torres, No. 06-766, 552 U.S. ____ (2008) Decided January 16, 2008 | See opinion here The Supreme Court held that New York's system of choosing party nominees for the State Supreme Court does not violate the First Amendment associational rights of prospective party candidates.  Since 1921, New York's election law has required parties to select their nominees by a convention of delegates chosen by party members in a primary election.  An individual may run for delegate by submitting a 500-signature petition collected within a specified time.  The convention's nominees appear on the general-election ballot, along with any independent candidates who meet certain statutory requirements. Judicial candidates, voters, and a non-profit organization filed suit against the New York State Board of Elections, seeking both a declaration that the convention for selecting Supreme Court Justices violated their First Amendment rights and an injunction mandating the establishment of a direct primary election to select party nominees for Supreme Court justice.  The district court issued a preliminary injunction, pending enactment of a new statutory scheme, and the Second Circuit affirmed.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Justice Scalia wrote for the Court, which reversed.  The Court rejected plaintiffs' attempt to rely upon the First Amendment associational right of political parties to structure their internal party processes and to select candidates.  Reasoning that plaintiffs' "real complaint" is that the convention process does not assure them a realistic opportunity to secure the party's nomination, the Court declared that the Constitution does not provide the right to have a "fair shot" at winning a party's nomination.  The Court dismissed the contention that the existence of entrenched “one-party rule' demands that the First Amendment be used to impose additional competition in the parties' nominee-selection process. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Souter, concurred, emphasizing that the majority's constitutional analysis should not be misread as endorsement of the electoral system under review or as disagreement with the findings of the district court that describe glaring deficiencies in the system.  Justice Kennedy also concurred, finding that the First Amendment argument would be more compelling were there not an alternative mechanism for placement on the final election ballot by petition.  Joined by Justice Breyer, Justice Kennedy further stated in his concurrence that New York's statutes for nominating and electing judges should promptly be changed if they do not produce both the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of law. The Court's opinion affirms the right of political parties to control their own internal nominating processes, and rejects the contention that would-be nominees have a First Amendment right to a  fair chance at the nomination.  This opinion could be important in any litigation arising out of the presidential nomination season.