Pilloud v. King County Republican Cent. Comm.
93786-9
| Wash. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- RCW 29A.80.061 (enacted as part of Laws of 2004, ch. 271) requires county chairs to call meetings of elected precinct committee officers in each legislative district to elect legislative district chairs every two years.
- King County Republican Central Committee's bylaws instead provided for the county chair to appoint legislative district chairs.
- Andrew Pilloud, a Republican precinct committee officer, filed a mandamus petition seeking enforcement of RCW 29A.80.061 against the Committee.
- The superior court dismissed the petition and later ruled the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment for regulating internal party structure; the Court of Appeals remanded for First Amendment review; on remand the superior court again invalidated the statute and dismissed the petition.
- The State Attorney General filed an amicus brief urging resolution on freedom of association grounds; Pilloud appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which granted direct review of the First Amendment and single-subject issues but resolved only the First Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 29A.80.061 violates the First Amendment freedom of association by dictating how a political party fills internal offices | Pilloud: statute ensures fair, orderly elections and prevents county committee from improperly directing district committees | Committee: statute improperly intrudes on internal party governance and bylaws that appoint district chairs | Held: statute violates freedom of association; it regulates internal party structure without a compelling, narrowly tailored state interest |
| Whether the statute is necessary to ensure fair and honest elections (compelling interest/narrow tailoring) | Pilloud: election requirement promotes electoral integrity and prevents abuses related to campaign activities | Committee: no compelling state interest shown; internal governance decision protected | Held: State failed to show necessity; statute not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest |
| Whether prior 1967 decision bars this action by collateral estoppel | Pilloud: action not collaterally estopped because current statute differs in scope | Committee: argued collateral estoppel based on invalidation of predecessor statute | Held: collateral estoppel inapplicable because the earlier case involved different statute and equal protection issues |
| Whether mandamus was appropriate to compel the Committee to hold elections under the statute | Pilloud: mandamus required to enforce statutory duty | Committee: no clear statutory duty because statute unconstitutional | Held: mandamus properly denied because statute unconstitutional and thus imposes no clear duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (state may not regulate internal party governance absent compelling, narrowly tailored interest)
- Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) (state-imposed delegate selection rules can violate parties' association rights)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (freedom of association protected against certain burdens on political belief-based associations)
- NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (associational privacy and freedom of association principles)
- Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975) (state control over internal party delegate selection impermissible without compelling justification)
- Marchioro v. Chaney, 442 U.S. 191 (1979) (upholding limited state requirements that do not control internal party decisions)
- Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (1986) (state interest cannot supersede party autonomy in associational matters)