Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query elections returned 44 results.

	NEW YORK STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS V.LOPEZ TORRES [Syllabus]
	MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Dissent]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Opinion]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Syllabus]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Dissent]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). [Syllabus]
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS V.LOPEZ TORRES [Syllabus]
	BRANCH V. SMITH [Syllabus] The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
	RICE V. CAYETANO [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
	YOUNG V. FORDICE, 520 U.S. 273 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RILEY V. KENNEDY [Syllabus]
	FOSTER V. LOVE, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 519 U.S. 9 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUBS FREEDOMCLUB PAC V.BENNETT [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE [Syllabus] The Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment.
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."
	[Syllabus]
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD. [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. BEAUMONT [Syllabus] The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
	CAPERTON V. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO. [Syllabus]
	BARTLETT V. STRICKLAND [Syllabus]
	CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL. DIST.NOV.HOLDER [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BURDICK V. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) [Syllabus]
	TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. COLORADOREPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM. [Syllabus] Because a political party's expenditures coordinated with its candidates, unlike the party's truly independent expenditures, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's contribution limits, the Colorado Republican Party's facial challenge to the Acts limits on parties' coordinated expenditures is rejected.
	CLINGMAN V. BEAVER [Syllabus]
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
	CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATESV. BROWN [Syllabus]
	RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 520 U.S. 471 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GUTIERREZ V. ADA [Syllabus] 1. By rewriting the statutory words "" in any election"" to state"" in any general election in which the gubernational election is a part,"" 2. By rewriting the statutory words a "" majority of votes cast in any election"" to mean a ""majority of votes cast in any election"" to mean a ""majority of ballots cast in any general election,"" and 3. By counting as ""votes"" ballots that are invalid under Guam election statutes, thereby placing the Ninth Circuit in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's interpretation of the identical language of the Virgin Islands Organic Act (48 U.S.C. 1591) in Todman v. Boschulte, 684 F.2D (3d Cir. 1982)?