Washington State Republican Party v. Washington

Ninth Circuit

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington

545 F.3d 1125, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20809, 2008 WL 4426713

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 2, 2008

Docket05-35774

StatusPublished

This text of 545 F.3d 1125 (Washington State Republican Party v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington, 545 F.3d 1125, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20809, 2008 WL 4426713 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case was remanded to us from the United States Supreme Court. See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008). In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, we VACATE our opinion in Washington State Republican Party v. Washington, 460 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2006), VACATE our August 22, 2006 and October 3, 2006 orders granting attorney’s fees and costs and REMAND to the district court with the following instructions.

The district court should DISMISS all facial assoeiational rights claims challenging Initiative 872. See Wash. State Grange, 128 S.Ct. at 1187.

The district court should DISMISS all equal protection claims. The allegedly discriminatory statutes were repealed by Initiative 872. See Wash. State Grange, 128 S.Ct. at 1192-93.

The district court should DISMISS as waived all claims that Initiative 872 imposes illegal qualifications for federal office, sets illegal timing of federal elections or imposes discriminatory campaign finance rules because these claims were neither pled by the parties nor addressed in summary judgment by the district court.

The district court may allow the parties to further develop the record with respect to the claims that Initiative 872 unconstitutionally constrains access to the ballot and appropriates the political parties’ trademarks, to the extent these claims have not been waived or disposed of by the Supreme Court.

The district court may make appropriate findings concerning the parties’ settlement of fees and should determine whether restitution or further fee awards are appropriate in response to appellee Washington State’s motion to vacate award of attorney’s fees and costs, for judgment awarding restitution of fees and costs and for costs.

Remanded for proceedings according to the above instructions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI