Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb
Significance, Court Strikes Law Down
The Communist Party of Indiana, certain of its officers and potential voters, and its candidates for president and vice-president in the 1972 general election
The Indiana state election board and its members
That the state's rule requiring political parties to submit a written oath stating that they will not advocate the overthrow of the federal, state or local government by violence or force in order to be placed on an election ballot was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Sanford Jay Rosen
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Warren E. Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
9 January 1974
That the law which forced the party to declare its non-intention to overthrow the government was unconstitutional.
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button, 371 U.S. 145 (1963).
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 523 (1968).
- American Bar Association Journal, March 1974, p. 322.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Indiana Law Review, Vol. 8, no. 1, p. 102.
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn - Significance, The Circumstances, At Issue: Privacy, At Issue: Censorship, The Court's Decision
- Columbia Broadcasting System v. The Democratic National Committee - Significance, Is Ad Space/time Public?
- Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb - Significance
- Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb - Court Strikes Law Down
- Other Free Encyclopedias