McCarthy v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We begin with the premise that the right to vote is paramount — ‘a fundamental political right because it is preservative of all rights.’ Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 , 84 S.Ct. 1362 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the Supreme Court declared: ‘The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.’ 377 U.S. at 555 , 84 S.Ct. at 1378 . Correlative to the right of individual franchise is the right to east one’s vote for the candidate of one’s choice: ‘A fundamental principle of our representative democracy is, in Hamilton’s words, “that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.” 2 Elliot’s Debates 257. As Madison pointed out at the Convention, this principle is undermined as much by limiting whom the people can select as by limiting the franchise itself.’ Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 , 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1977 , 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). The full and effective utilization of the individual franchise may entail some form of group association. In Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968), the Supreme Court termed ‘the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs’ one of ‘our most precious freedoms.’ 393 U.S. at 30 , 89 S.Ct. 5 . .in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 495 F. Supp. 782 - Hall v. Austin

2. “[i]t may be that the 1% registration requirement is a valid condition to extending ballot position to a new political party. But the political party and the independent candidate approaches to political activity are entirely different and neither is a satisfactory substitute for the other. A new party organization contemplates a state-wide, ongoing organization with distinctive political character. Its goal is typically to gain control of the machinery of state government by electing its candidates to public office. From the standpoint of a potential supporter, affiliation with the new party would mean giving up his ties with another party or sacrificing his own independent status, even though-his possible interest in the new party centers around a particular candidate for a particular office. For the candidate himself, it would mean undertaking the serious responsibilities of qualified party status under California law, such as the conduct of a primary, holding party conventions, and the promulgation of party platforms. But more fundamentally, the candidate, who is by definition an independent and desires to remain one, must now consider himself a party man, surrendering his independent status. Must he necessarily choose the political party route if he wants to appear on the ballot in the general election? We think not.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 495 F. Supp. 782 - Hall v. Austin

3. ““The election laws and procedures of the State of Michigan, Public Act 116 of 1954, M.S.A. Chapter 58a, are constitutionally deficient . . . and therefore shall be implemented to permit independent candidates not affiliated with any political party a position on the official State ballot on terms and conditions equal to those of partisan candidates.” 423 F.Supp. at 1000 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 495 F. Supp. 782 - Hall v. Austin