TRAFELET v. THOMPSON
Annotate this Case
444 U.S. 906 (1979)
U.S. Supreme Court
TRAFELET v. THOMPSON , 444 U.S. 906 (1979)
444 U.S. 906
Raymond E. TRAFELET et al.
James R. THOMPSON, Governor of Illinois, et al
Supreme Court of the United States
October 9, 1979
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.
This case presents the issue whether a state law that requires elected judges to retire at the age of 70, challenged on grounds that it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, ought to be subjected to strict scrutiny or to the less exacting rational-relationship test employed by the court below. The determination turns on whether the challenged judicial retirement law is properly regarded as a limitation
on access to the ballot that impairs "the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively." Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30, 21 L. Ed.2d 24 (1968). We have held as recently as last Term that a state law limiting access to the ballot "impairs the voters' ability to express their political preferences," and thus could be justified only by a compelling state interest whose presence or absence is determined when a reviewing court subjects the questioned provision to strict scrutiny. Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184, 99 S. Ct. 983, 990 (1979). Accord, e. g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 728-729 (1974).
Because the decision of the court below as to the appropriate standard of review is possibly in conflict with these and other decisions of this Court, I would grant this petition for certiorari and dissent from the Court's unwillingness to do so.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.