Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange, 676 F.3d 784

Washington adopted Initiative 872 creating a top-two primary system for partisan offices with ballots displaying each candidate's party preference and a disclaimer that preference does not imply endorsement.
The Washington State Republican Party, Democratic Central Committee, Libertarian Party, and other intervenors challenged I-872 as applied, claiming it burdened party associational rights and ballot access.
The district court granted some claims and dismissed others; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for consideration of the asserted voter confusion issues.
The Supreme Court in Grange directed that ballots be designed to minimize voter confusion, suggesting several implementable options that Washington subsequently adopted (disclaimers, descriptive phrasing, voter education).
Key features of the implemented ballot include a prominent disclaimer, candidate party preference shown as a descriptive parenthetical, voters’ pamphlet explanations, and pre-election educational announcements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did I-872 as implemented severely burden associational rights?	Grange violated by ballot design	Ballot design reduces confusion; no severe burden	Not severe; meets modest burden standard
Does I-872 as applied violate ballot access for minor parties?	Top-two limits minor-party access to general ballot	Equal access to primary and general; not severe burden	Not severe; constitutional under top-two framework
Do trademark claims against the state survive?	State uses party labels in ballots as services	No plausible use of marks in services; claims fail	Dismissed
Did the district court err in reimbursing attorney's fees under the settlement?	Settlement resolved Ninth Circuit fees; reversal governs	Reservation preserved right to fees if Supreme Court changed outcome	Reversed; settlement resolved Ninth Circuit fees; no reimbursement
Was leave to amend to add a state constitutional claim improper?	Should be allowed to add constitutional claim	Undue delay and complex issues counsel against amendment	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed

Grange v. Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (principal framework for ballot design to avoid voter confusion)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (early filing burdens on independent candidates unconstitutional)
Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (U.S. 2000) (approval of top-two primary systems)
Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (burden analysis balancing test; minor burdens permissible)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1986) (limited impact of primary-only ballot access on rights)
Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1972) (petitioning burden related to ballot access)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1968) (equal access and ballot structure considerations)