New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres
http://dbpedia.org/resource/New_York_State_Board_of_Elections_v._Lopez_Torres an entity of type: Thing
N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that involved a constitutional challenge brought against New York State's judicial election law, alleging that it unfairly prevented candidates from obtaining access to the ballot. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge and held that the state's election laws did not infringe upon candidates' First Amendment associational rights. Several concurring justices emphasized, however, that their decision reflected only the constitutionality of the state's election system, and not its wisdom or merit.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
New York State Board of Elections, et al. v. Margarita Lopez Torres, et al.
xsd:integer
27156512
xsd:integer
1100036195
xsd:integer
6
rdf:langString
Roberts, Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
On writ of certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
xsd:integer
196
xsd:integer
552
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-03
xsd:integer
2007
rdf:langString
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres,
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-16
xsd:integer
2008
rdf:langString
New York State Board of Elections, et al. v. Margarita Lopez Torres, et al.
rdf:langString
The court upheld New York's party-based judicial election laws.
rdf:langString
New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torrez
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that involved a constitutional challenge brought against New York State's judicial election law, alleging that it unfairly prevented candidates from obtaining access to the ballot. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge and held that the state's election laws did not infringe upon candidates' First Amendment associational rights. Several concurring justices emphasized, however, that their decision reflected only the constitutionality of the state's election system, and not its wisdom or merit.
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Kennedy
rdf:langString
Souter
rdf:langString
Breyer
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10514