# The Ripon Society, Inc. v. National Republican Party the Ripon Society, Inc. v. National Republican Party

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · February 23, 1976 · 525 F.2d 567

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462248

## Case

- **Full name:** The RIPON SOCIETY, INC., Et Al., Appellants, v. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY Et Al.; The RIPON SOCIETY, INC., Et Al., v. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** February 23, 1976
- **Citations:** 525 F.2d 567; 173 U.S. App. D.C. 350
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by MacKINNON
- **Judges:** Bazelon, Danaher, Wright, McGowan, Tamm, Leven-Thal, Robinson, MacKinnon, Robb, Wilkey, Society, Wil-Key
- **Cited by:** 104 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462248

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that because "the individual plaintiffs had standing to bring th[e] suit,” the presence of a party arguably lacking in standing would not "lessen the controversy, or blur the presentation of issues, or alter the course of the litigation in any way”
- noting that delegates are selected through a process that is “virtually (or even officially) [one] of appointment by party officials”
- holding that individual political party members had standing to challenge national party delegate allocation formula
- noting in the context of nominating convention that "[i]f the right to vote is a right to true participation in the elective process, then it is heavily implicated in the nomination process"
- holding that one-person, one-vote does not apply to party nominating conventions

## Opinion text

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
In my opinion, the Ripon Society has no standing to bring this suit, and I would therefore direct the dismissal of the complaint as to it. Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 224 , 94 S.Ct. 2925 , 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739 , 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1368 , 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972) (“[A] mere ‘interest in a problem,’ no matter how longstanding the interest and how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to *590 [confer standing on the organization.]”). Of course, the presence of the individual plaintiffs, who do have standing, means that Ripon’s lack of standing is not fatal to this action.
With the above exception, I concur in Judge McGowan’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462248. Public record. Not legal advice.