Democratic Party v. Nago
982 F. Supp. 2d 1166
D. Haw.2013Background
- Hawaii Constitution (art. II, § 4, amended 1978) and HRS §§ 12-1, 12-2, 12-31 require a statewide "open" primary (voters not required to publicly declare party preference) for all general-election nominations except presidential electors; first implemented in 1980.
- Under Hawaii law, a primary voter may select and vote only one party's primary ballot (or the nonpartisan ballot); ballots marked contrary to that rule are not counted.
- The Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH) sues, bringing a facial First Amendment challenge (not an as-applied challenge), arguing the open primary forces the Party to "associate" anonymously with nonmembers and adversaries and thus severely burdens its freedom of association.
- DPH seeks partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction; the State (Chief Election Officer Nago) counter-moves for summary judgment defending the open primary as constitutional and justified by privacy and voter-participation interests.
- The parties agree there are no material factual disputes on the record; the court treats the challenge as facial and resolves the constitutional question on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hawaii’s open primary is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment associational right | Open primary forces parties to associate with anonymous crossover or opposing voters, severely burdening parties’ right to exclude when selecting nominees | Open primary has legitimate objectives (privacy, participation); not unconstitutional in all applications because some parties welcome broad participation | Denied: facial challenge fails — law has at least some constitutional applications and is not unconstitutional in all applications |
| Whether the open primary imposes a "severe burden" requiring strict scrutiny | DPH: akin to California blanket primary (Jones) which "adulterated" selection and changed party message, thus severe burden | State: Hawaii’s open primary is materially different from the blanket primary; burden depends on party-specific facts and may be modest | Denied: DPH failed to show a severe burden on the face of the statute; factual showing required to prove severe burden |
| Whether Jones controls and mandates invalidation without an evidentiary record | DPH: Jones shows facial invalidity because anonymous participation inherently burdens association | State: Jones relied on a developed evidentiary record; facial invalidation requires proof of concrete harmful effects | Held for State: courts require factual record (as-applied evidence) to show effects like crossover voting skewing nominations; facial relief inappropriate here |
| Whether preliminary injunction should issue | DPH: likely success on merits and irreparable harm from compelled association | State: DPH unlikely to succeed on the merits because facial challenge fails; public interest favors established election rules | Denied: DPH failed to demonstrate likely success on the merits or irreparable harm; injunctive relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial-challenge standards and caution against striking down statutes absent proof of unconstitutional applications)
- California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (invalidating California blanket primary where nonmembers could determine party nominees and change party message)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test: weigh character and magnitude of First Amendment burden against state interests)
- Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005) (state authority to structure primaries; associational rights limit state regulation)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (facial challenges to election laws require careful weighing of evidentiary record and burden showing)
- Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (1986) (state rules that prevent a party from including independents in primaries can impermissibly burden associational rights)
- Democratic Party v. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) (discussing open vs. blanket primaries and party associational interests)