and legally required aspects of the process of public choice in New York. See N.Y. Elec. L. §§ 6-106, -124. Further, as a practical matter, the evidence established that the result of that nominating process pro foundly affects the choice at the general election, a fact to which “we cannot close our eyes” because it means that exclusionary nominating-phase regulations may well “operate to deprive the voter of his constitutional right of choice.” Classic, 313 U.S. at 319, 61 S.Ct. 1031; see also Terry, 345 U.S. at 469, 73 S.Ct. 809; Bullock, 405 U.S. at 146, 92 S.Ct. 849. Accordingly, both segments of the nominating procedure are integral parts of the State’s election machinery, and therefore subject to the requirements and prohibitions of the First Amendment. Seergy, 459 F.2d at 313 (<HOLDING>). 2. The First Amendment Guarantees Voters and
recognizing the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right of qualified voters regardless of their political persuasion to cast their votes effectively holding petition nominating candidate under socialist party violated the act where socialist labor party was entitled to protection of party name protection act holding petition nominating candidate under social democratic party violated party name protection act holding that a law that merely affects voting without actually denying the right to vote or depriving voters of equal representation is usually not subject to strict scrutiny holding that constitutional protection attaches to nominating process regardless of whether voting occurs directly by voters or indirectly through their committeemen