Pontikes v. Kusper’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1993
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Reynolds v. Sims · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Douglas v. People of State of California · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he statute sweeps too broadly, impeding both deceptive conduct and constitutionally protected activities. If section 7-43 (d) were not in effect, massive party switching could occur either because of the well-planned raiding of one party, * * * or because of the massive dissatisfaction with the prevailing policies of any existing party. The state’s interest upon which this statute is grounded could be characterized as ‘compelling’ only if the former alternative is more likely to occur than the latter, or if raiding constitutes a more important danger * * * to constitutionally protected rights however often it occurs. There is no evidence to indicate that raiding is more likely to take place than ‘honest’ switches of affiliation. Forty-four states do not impose post election restraints on changing affiliation. This would indicate that raiding is not a serious threat to the multi-party system.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The voter’s choice of candidates in a single party’s primary is not disclosed. The only public declaration he is called upon to make is to choose which party primary to participate in. Any imposition this places on the voter is minimal. Moreover, whatever burden is suffered is outweighed by the state’s ‘compelling’ interest in preventing election fraud.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Raiding occurs where members of one party vote in the primary of the opposition party in the hopes of electing a weak candidate or a `straw man' who could easily be defeated by the candidate of their true party in the general election.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lesniak v. Budzash
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.