Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Ray v. Blair

Supreme Court of the United States · 1952 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPresidential ElectorsPolitical PartiesPrimary ElectionsTwelfth AmendmentTwelfth AmendmentArticle IIpresidential electors

Facts

Alabama law permitted political parties holding state-run primaries to fix the qualifications of candidates in those primaries. Acting under that authority, the Alabama Democratic Executive Committee required candidates for presidential elector to pledge support to the nominees of the Democratic National Convention for President and Vice-President. Blair was otherwise qualified but refused to include that portion of the pledge in his declaration of candidacy. The party chairman therefore refused to certify him, and the Alabama courts ordered certification on the ground that the pledge requirement unconstitutionally restricted an elector's freedom under the Twelfth Amendment.

Issue

May a state, through authority granted to a political party conducting a primary, require a candidate for presidential elector to pledge support for the party's national nominees? More specifically, does the Twelfth Amendment bar a party from excluding from its primary a candidate for elector who refuses such a pledge?

Rule

Where a state authorizes a political party to choose its nominees for presidential elector in a party primary and to fix candidate qualifications, the Federal Constitution does not forbid the party from requiring a pledge to support the nominees of the party's national convention. The Twelfth Amendment does not bar such a pledge requirement, and the fact that the primary is part of the election machinery is immaterial unless the requirement violates some constitutional or statutory provision.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ohio law allows any political party using the state-run presidential-elector primary to set qualifications for candidates seeking that party's nomination. The Liberty Party requires each candidate for presidential elector to sign a declaration promising to support the party's national convention nominees for President and Vice President, and Nina Patel refuses to sign that clause.

If Nina sues claiming the pledge requirement is unconstitutional because the Twelfth Amendment guarantees electors absolute freedom to vote as they wish, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that where a state authorizes a party to choose its nominees for presidential elector in a party primary and to fix candidate qualifications, the Federal Constitution does not forbid a pledge to support the party's national nominees. The Twelfth Amendment requires electors to vote by ballot, but it does not prohibit a candidate from announcing or pledging his intended choice beforehand. The case did not depend on whether the pledge would later be legally enforceable.