Do the GOP and the Democratic Party have to follow state laws?

I've been researching the US political process and I came across the case of O'Brien v. Brown [409 U.S. 1 (1972)]. Here's an article on it:

THEATRE OF THE POLITICALLY ABSURD The Relationship between State Law and Party Rules and the "Punishing" of the former where violative of the latter (PART TWO)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in the case included the following quote:

The primary process was, by State law, the first step in a process designed to select a [Major Party's] candidate for President; the State will include [presidential] electors pledged to that candidate on the ballot in the general election; the State is intertwined in the process at every step, not only authorizing the primary but conducting it, and adopting its result for use in the general election. In these circumstances, the primary must be regarded as an integral part of the general election.

There is no doubt in my mind that "by State law" refers to the fact that the Democratic Party had to follow state laws during the primary process.

However, I've also found that the Republic Party (and I'm sure this applies to the Democratic Party too) can arbitrarily decide to ignore all state laws in choosing their presidential nominee. It could be done by unbinding all delegates on the first vote at the party's convention:

RNC Rules Member: Changes To Binding Delegates ‘Unlikely’

Republican National Committee member on nomination process: “This is the greatest hoax ever.”

It's written into the rules (quoting from the second article linked to above):

The problem, Haugland says, is that key parts of Rules 13-to-25 directly conflict with Rules 26-to-42. For example, Rule 16 “bind the state delegation” to the results of their “proportional or winner take all” votes. But Rule 38 says “no delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound” by what it terms a “unit vote,” which means “a delegation… casts its entire vote as a unit.” Thus, to Haugland, the RNC can’t force states to implement winner take all rules, and can’t force delegates to surrender their votes to a state delegation.

So, which is it? Do the parties have to follow state laws or not?

If you're going to claim that they don't, why go through the trouble of a lawsuit such as O'Brien v. Brown?

At the same time, it's written into the rules (at least explicitly for the Republican Party) that they don't have to follow state laws.

The problem was that, a year earlier, the Democratic Party had implemented reforms which intended, among many other things, to eventually do away with such Winner Take All contests

That's not surprising.

Everyone gets a trophy for showing up.

So, which is it? Do the parties have to follow state laws or not?

LAWS only applies to the little people.

That means average John and Jane Doe Public.

originally posted by: neo96
LAWS only applies to the little people.

That means average John and Jane Doe Public.

The fact that a Supreme Court case such as O'Brien v. Brown even exists proves that the Republican and Democratic parties have to follow laws to some degree. The Supreme Court can only hear cases involving states opposing each other or constitutional issues. Therefore, the Republican and Democratic parties obviously must follow the U.S. Constitution.

On the other hand, I found this as well:

Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This!

The conclusion from the original post in that thread:

What does this all mean?

Based on federal law (check the Cornell link for the full article) Since the RNC is nominating a candidate to a federal position... federal law presides over the GOP rules/laws therefore nullifying the rule that delegates are bound to the winner of the primary states.

In other words DELEGATES who are seated in Tampa can vote for whoever they want on the first round. They cannot be forced or coerced in any-way-shape or form.

It looks to me like it can be proven that the the parties must follow the U.S. Constitution but they are also not following federal law (incredibly) by following state laws.

So, while it looks like you're wrong on one hand, it also looks like your'e right on the other hand.

It really depends on the delegate count going into the convention. If Trump or Cruz were to win the required number (I don't recall offhand the number) of delegates prior to the convention, then traditionally, all of the delegates would go to that person, whether he won them or not, which technically doesn't follow individual state law.

However, if there is no candidate with the required number to win the nomination, then, per each state's laws, there are a number of "pledged" delegates who must go to the candidate who won said delegates. Since some states are not "winner take all" states, those delegates would cast votes based on the results of that state's primary/caucus.

It's a simplification of the process, but a basic overview of how and when state law is controlling versus federal law. There are a number of "unbound" delegates who can vote however they want at the convention, and there is always a big uproar of how they will rock the boat/vote (showing my age) but it largely amounts to nothing more than talk, ala the 2012 Ron Paul delegates who were all talk.

It will be interesting to see it unfold this time around with no clear cut winner, although that can certainly change prior to the convention. Still some big state primaries to come.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
It really depends on the delegate count going into the convention. If Trump or Cruz were to win the required number (I don't recall offhand the number) of delegates prior to the convention, then traditionally, all of the delegates would go to that person, whether he won them or not, which technically doesn't follow individual state law.

However, if there is no candidate with the required number to win the nomination, then, per each state's laws, there are a number of "pledged" delegates who must go to the candidate who won said delegates. Since some states are not "winner take all" states, those delegates would cast votes based on the results of that state's primary/caucus.

It's a simplification of the process, but a basic overview of how and when state law is controlling versus federal law. There are a number of "unbound" delegates who can vote however they want at the convention, and there is always a big uproar of how they will rock the boat/vote (showing my age) but it largely amounts to nothing more than talk, ala the 2012 Ron Paul delegates who were all talk.

It will be interesting to see it unfold this time around with no clear cut winner, although that can certainly change prior to the convention. Still some big state primaries to come.

Can you provide sources that prove that any part of what you just described must happen? The following expert opinions and the RNC’s current rules contradict the idea that any part of what you just wrote is what must happen.

I've found that the Republic Party can arbitrarily decide to ignore all state laws in choosing their presidential nominee. It could be done by unbinding all delegates on the first vote at the party's convention:

RNC Rules Member: Changes To Binding Delegates ‘Unlikely’

Republican National Committee member on nomination process: “This is the greatest hoax ever.”

It's written into the rules (quoting from the second article linked to above):

The problem, Haugland says, is that key parts of Rules 13-to-25 directly conflict with Rules 26-to-42. For example, Rule 16 “bind the state delegation” to the results of their “proportional or winner take all” votes. But Rule 38 says “no delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound” by what it terms a “unit vote,” which means “a delegation… casts its entire vote as a unit.” Thus, to Haugland, the RNC can’t force states to implement winner take all rules, and can’t force delegates to surrender their votes to a state delegation.

I've finally found the answer to whether the parties have to follow state laws:

A candidate must win the votes of a majority of delegates to secure the nomination. In 2016, the magic number is 1,237 (50% + 1 of the 2,472 Convention delegates). Most delegates will go to Convention “bound” to vote for a particular candidate, based on how their state or territory voted.
gop.com...

Can we put to bed the lie that I've seen posted on this forum so many times...

"The parties can choose a nominee however they want to."

Where do completely erroneous slogans like that come from?

I've finally found the answer to whether the parties have to follow state laws:

A candidate must win the votes of a majority of delegates to secure the nomination. In 2016, the magic number is 1,237 (50% + 1 of the 2,472 Convention delegates). Most delegates will go to Convention “bound” to vote for a particular candidate, based on how their state or territory voted.
gop.com...

Can we put to bed the lie that I've seen posted on this forum so many times...

"The parties can choose a nominee however they want to."

Where do completely erroneous slogans like that come from?

originally posted by: Profusion
I've finally found the answer to whether the parties have to follow state laws:

A candidate must win the votes of a majority of delegates to secure the nomination. In 2016, the magic number is 1,237 (50% + 1 of the 2,472 Convention delegates). Most delegates will go to Convention “bound” to vote for a particular candidate, based on how their state or territory voted.
gop.com...

Can we put to bed the lie that I've seen posted on this forum so many times...

"The parties can choose a nominee however they want to."

Where do completely erroneous slogans like that come from?

I don't think we can put it to bed.

In 2008, the DNC schemed to have Florida and Michigan move their primary dates, Hillary left her name on the Michigan ballot and Obama removed his, then the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee later decided to gift Obama with 600,000 votes cast for Hillary and nearly all the Undecided votes. This was in violation of the DNC's delegate selection rules.

In effect, the DNC chose their nominee by committee, in violation of their own rules...and everyone just believed it was all just an unfortunate, unplanned, unintentional accident.

But I'd bet money that was all planned before the race ever began. The parties can scheme any way they want to choose their own nominee. That's a fact. After all, Hillary actually won the popular vote and should have won the nomination if the DNC did not disenfranchise millions of Michigan (and Florida) voters.



ETA: None of this means that I support Hillary. Just want to make that crystal clear. I do not.

Despite suspending his campaign, Sen. Marco Rubio is attempting to keep every delegate he won while running for president.

The unusual move reflects preparations for a contested convention this summer — and comes as Donald Trump backed away from an earlier pledge to support the Republican party's nominee if he is treated unfairly after winning more delegates than his rivals.
Rubio Makes Unprecedented Bid to Keep Delegates for Contested Convention

The Republican party via Rubio is attempting to petition US states and territories to change the way they allocate delegates. Isn't that proof that the states and territories are in control of the matter and not the Republicans?

That proves to me that the main question posed in this thread is settled:

Do the GOP and the Democratic Party have to follow state laws?

Without any doubt, the answer is yes.