Central Committee v. State of Washington

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN
PARTY; CHRISTOPHER VANCE;
BERTABELLE HUBKA; STEVE
NEIGHBORS; BRENT BOGER; MARCY
COLLINS; MICHAEL YOUNG,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and
WASHINGTON STATE DEMOCRATIC Nos. 05-35774CENTRAL COMMITTEE; PAUL 05-35780BERENDT; LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF
WASHINGTON STATE; RUTH D.C. No. 
BENNETT; J.S. MILLS, CV-05-00927-TSZ
Plaintiffs-Intervenors- ORDER
Appellees,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON; ROB
MCKENNA, Attorney General; SAM
REED, Secretary of State;
WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE,
Defendants-Intervenors-
Appellants. 
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
Filed October 2, 2008
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Pamela Ann Rymer and
Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.
13979

-- 1 of 4 --

ORDER
This case was remanded to us from the United States
Supreme Court. See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State
Republican Party, 128 S. Ct. 1184 (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 associational
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 The allegedly discriminatory statutes were repealed by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 dis-
criminatory campaign finance rules because these claims were
neither pled by the parties nor addressed in summary judg-
ment by the district court.
The district court may allow the parties to further develop
the record with respect to the claims that Initiative 872 uncon-
stitutionally 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 concern-
ing 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 res-
titution of fees and costs and for costs.
13980 WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN v. WASHINGTON

-- 2 of 4 --

Remanded for proceedings according to the above instruc-
tions.
13981 WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN v. WASHINGTON

-- 3 of 4 --

PRINTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.

-- 4 of 4 --