Anthony Kennedy

“ The respondent committee members allege injury to their rights, either through their committees or as individual committee members, to endorse candidates for nonpartisan offices, and also allege injury from the inability of candidates to include those endorsements in voter pamphlets. Respondents of course have standing to claim that § 6 (b) has been applied in an unconstitutional manner to bar their own speech. ”

“ We do not know the nature of the endorsement, how it would be publicized, or the precise language petitioners might delete from the voter pamphlet. To the extent respondents allege that a committee or a committee member wishes to "support" or "oppose" a candidate other than through endorsements, they do not specify what form that support or opposition would take.
The record also contains no evidence of a credible threat that § 6 (b) will be enforced, other than against candidates in the context of voter pamphlets. ”

“ We also discern no ripe controversy in the allegations that respondents desire to endorse candidates in future elections, either as individual committee members or through their committees. Respondents do not allege an intention to endorse any particular candidate, nor that a candidate wants to include a party's or committee member's endorsement in a candidate statement. ”

“ Election Action, an association of voters, is also a respondent, but it asserts no interest in relation to the issues before us different from that of the individual voters. Hence, we need not consider it further.
Respondents filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Their third cause of action challenged § 6 (b) and petitioners' acknowledged policy, based on that provision, of deleting any references to a party endorsement from the candidate statements included in voter pamphlets. ”

“ While petitioners have threatened not to allow candidates to include endorsements by county committees or their members in the voter pamphlets prepared by the government, we do not believe deferring adjudication will impose a substantial hardship on these respondents. In all probability, respondents can learn which candidates have been endorsed by particular parties or committee members through other means. ”

“ Section 6 (b) reads: "No political party or party central committee may endorse, support, or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office." Its companion provision, § 6 (a) , provides that " [a] ll judicial, school, county, and city offices shall be nonpartisan."
* In view of our determination that the case is nonjusticiable, the identity of the parties has crucial relevance. Petitioners are the City and County of San Francisco, its Board of Supervisors, and certain local officials. The individual respondents are 10 registered voters residing in the City and County of San Francisco. ”

“ Justiciability concerns not only the standing of litigants to assert particular claims, but also the appropriate timing of judicial intervention. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 136-148, 95 S.Ct. 335, 355-361, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974) . Respondents have failed to demonstrate a live dispute involving the actual or threatened application of § 6 (b) to bar particular speech. Respondents' generalized claim that petitioners have deleted party endorsements from candidate statements in past elections does not demonstrate a live controversy. ”

“ The court entered judgment on this claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b) , and petitioners appealed. A Ninth Circuit panel reversed, 880 F.2d 1062 (1989) , but the en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, 911 F.2d 280 (CA9 1990) (en banc) .
We granted certiorari, 498 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 750, 112 L.Ed.2d 771 (1991) , to determine whether § 6 (b) violates the First Amendment. At oral argument, doubts arose concerning the justiciability of that issue in the case before us. ”