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

CENTRAL COMMITTEE; PAUL Nos. 05-35774

BERENDT; LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF 05-35780

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 13980 WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN v. WASHINGTON

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 The allegedly discriminatory statutes were repealed by Initiative 872.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. WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN v. WASHINGTON 13981 Remanded for proceedings according to the above instruc- tions.

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.