Washington – As the Supreme Court convened its new term Monday, the justices immersed themselves in the first of several election- law challenges the court has agreed to decide in the midst of the 2008 elections.
Skeptical justices heard the state of Washington defend its voter-approved election system against a challenge that it unconstitutionally prevents political parties from choosing their own nominees.
Washington has a “top two” primary system, in which all candidates on the ballot state a party “preference” and all voters may choose among them. The top two advance to the general election, even if they prefer the same party. The major political parties have challenged the system, saying it violates their First Amendment association rights.
Washington Attorney General Robert McKenna argued that the state has a right to set its own election rules and that the party preference listed by the candidates is simply helpful information for voters, not a sign the party endorses that candidate’s views.
But several justices were doubtful.
“If it’s your position that the parties are not really injured or affected by this, and the parties’ position is that they are, who should we believe?” asked Justice Anthony Kennedy. “I mean, it’s hard for you to tell the parties that they don’t know what’s in their best interest.”
The justices also heard arguments in a case that asks whether school districts must pay for a private education for children with learning disabilities if the public schools have never had the chance to show they can provide the services.
The case concerns the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which requires the public system to provide a free and appropriate public education or pay for private tuition.
The court Monday also provided details about cases it had decided not to hear this term. Included on the list were two cases involving separation of church and state.
In one, justices refused to take an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which said a California library did not have to let a religious organization use its community meeting room.
The court also let stand a New York court’s ruling that the state could require religious organizations to pay for contraceptive services under employee health-care plans.
