Byron White

“ The only kind of "control" that § 6 (b) seeks to prohibit, however, is that which "those who run political parties" are able to exert over voters through issuing party endorsements. In effect, then, petitioners are arguing that the State has an interest in protecting "the people" from their own susceptibility to being influenced by political speech. This is the very sort of paternalism that we deemed illegitimate in Eu. ”

“ Essentially ignoring the wealth of relevant case law, the majority proceeds as if the justiciability questions presented by this case-questions of standing and ripeness-were novel and unresolved. On the issue of standing, the majority purports to find "serious questions" concerning respondents' entitlement to challenge § 6 (b) . Ante, at 318. Since mere "questions" about standing cannot sustain the dismissal of a suit, one wonders why the majority offers dicta of this kind. As it turns out, the majority uses this opportunity to espouse a novel basis for denying a party standing ”

“ It is also clear that respondents have alleged sufficient "present injury occasioned by the threat of [future enforcement] ." Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, supra, 419 U.S., at 143, n. 29, 95 S.Ct., at 358, n. 29. Obviously, the reason that parties bring pre-enforcement challenges to laws that restrict election-related speech is to avoid the risk that a court will be unable to dispose of a postenforcement challenge quickly enough for the challenging parties to participate in a scheduled election. ”

“ Finally, this injury would, in my view, be redressed by the relief requested by respondents, for an injunction against the redaction policy would prevent petitioners from continuing to block respondents' access to committee endorsements in voter pamphlets.
The majority's "doubt" about respondents' entitlement to proceed on a listener-standing theory [2] relates wholly to redressability. The majority notes that a provision in the California Election Code bars inclusion of a candidate's party affiliation in the statement submitted for publication in a voter pamphlet. ”

“ Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) . In my view, "careful . . . examination of [the] complain [t] ," id., at 752, 104 S.Ct., at 3325, makes it clear that these requirements are met in this case. ”