American Party of Texas et al. v. White, Secretary of State of Texas
The Court held that it is unconstitutional to exclude minority party candidates from absentee ballots that include the major-party candidates.
415 U.S. 767 · No. 72-887 · 1973 term · Burger Court
Decided Mar 25, 1974 · argued Nov 5, 1973
Civil rights · Ballot access
Majority opinion: Byron White
The voteMajorityDissent
8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent
1 dissent (8–1)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. American Party of Texas et al. won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the Texas Western U.S. District Court, overturned or set aside the rest, and sent the case back for further proceedings that follow its ruling.
American Party of Texas et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it is unconstitutional to exclude minority party candidates from absentee ballots that include the major-party candidates.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1973 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Byron WhiteWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanJoined the majority
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(1)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- American Party of Texas et al.Political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official
- Respondent
- White, Secretary of State of TexasState (Texas)
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Mar 25, 1974DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. American Party of Texas et al. won.
- Nov 5, 1973ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Texas Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
21 other argued cases since 1946 on ballot access, newest first.
- Trump v. AndersonLandmark · Fourteenth Amendment rights601 U.S. 100Mar 4, 2024 · 601 U.S. 100Civil rightsLandmark · Fourteenth Amendment rights9–0Unanimous band
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, et al.552 U.S. 442Mar 18, 2008 · 552 U.S. 442Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Rebecca McDowell Cook v. Donald J. Gralike and Mike Harman531 U.S. 510Feb 28, 2001 · 531 U.S. 510Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- California Democratic Party, et al. v. Bill Jones, Secretary of State of California, et al.530 U.S. 567Jun 26, 2000 · 530 U.S. 567Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Michele L. Timmons, Acting Director, Ramsey County Department of Property Records and Revenue, et al. v. Twin Cities Area New Party520 U.S. 351Apr 28, 1997 · 520 U.S. 351Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Alan B. Burdick v. Morris Takushi, Director of Elections of Hawaii, et al.504 U.S. 428Jun 8, 1992 · 504 U.S. 428Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Barbara J. Norman, et al. v. Dorothy Reed, et al.502 U.S. 279Jan 14, 1992 · 502 U.S. 279Civil rights7–18–1 band
- Tashjian, Secretary of State of Connecticut v. Republican Party of Connecticut et al.479 U.S. 208Dec 10, 1986 · 479 U.S. 208Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Munro, Secretary of State of Washington v. Socialist Workers Party et al.479 U.S. 189Dec 10, 1986 · 479 U.S. 189Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Anderson et al. v. Celebrezze, Secretary of State of Ohio460 U.S. 780Apr 19, 1983 · 460 U.S. 780Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Clements, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Fashing et al.457 U.S. 957Jun 25, 1982 · 457 U.S. 957Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party et al.440 U.S. 173Feb 22, 1979 · 440 U.S. 173Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Mandel, Governor of Maryland, et al. v. Bradley et al.432 U.S. 173Jun 16, 1977 · 432 U.S. 173Civil rights7–18–1 band
- Lubin v. Panish, Registrar-Recorder of County of Los Angeles415 U.S. 709Mar 26, 1974 · 415 U.S. 709Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Storer et al. v. Brown, Secretary of State of California, et al.415 U.S. 724Mar 25, 1974 · 415 U.S. 724Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Bullock et al. v. Carter et al.405 U.S. 134Feb 24, 1972 · 405 U.S. 134Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
- Jenness et al. v. Fortson, Secretary of State of Georgia403 U.S. 431Jun 21, 1971 · 403 U.S. 431Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Brockington v. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio, et al.396 U.S. 41Nov 24, 1969 · 396 U.S. 41Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Moore et al. v. Ogilvie, Governor of Illinois, et al.394 U.S. 814May 5, 1969 · 394 U.S. 814Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Williams et al. v. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio, et al.393 U.S. 23Oct 15, 1968 · 393 U.S. 23Civil rights6–36–3 band
- MacDOUGALL et al. v. Green, Governor of Illinois, et al.335 U.S. 281Oct 21, 1948 · 335 U.S. 281Civil rights6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.