Electoral Systems. The choice of Electoral System is one of the most important institutional decisions for any democracy. The choice of a particular electoral system. Opposition to Gerrymandering Could PA become a model for gerrymander reform A contentious fight is playing out in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. A growing number of. Youth%20and%20College/Logo_w_officialmark.png' alt='Naacp Election Manual' title='Naacp Election Manual' />NAACP v. Alabama Wikipedia. It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as the forms of governmental action in the cases above were thought likely to produce upon the particular constitutional rights there involved. This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in ones associations. When referring to the varied forms of governmental action which might interfere with freedom of assembly, it said in American Communications Assn v. Douds, supra, 3. 39 U. S. at page 4. 02, 7. S. Ct. at page 6. Zombie Shooter 2 Crack Serial. A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm bands, for example, is obviously of this nature. Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs. Cf. United States v. Rumely, supra, 3. U. S. at pages 5. S. Ct. at pages 5. We think that the production order, in the respects here drawn in question, must be regarded as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioners members of their right to freedom of association. Petitioner has made an uncontroverted showing that on past occasions revelation of the identity of its rank and file members has exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility. Under these circumstances, we think it apparent that compelled disclosure of petitioners Alabama membership is likely to affect adversely the ability of petitioner and its members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs which they admittedly have the right to advocate, in that it may induce members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the consequences of this exposure. It is not sufficient to answer, as the State does here, that whatever repressive effect compulsory disclosure of names of petitioners members may have upon participation by Alabama citizens in petitioners activities follows not from state action but from private community pressures. The crucial factor is the interplay of governmental and private action, for it is only after the initial exertion of state power represented by the production order that private action takes hold. Whether there was justification in this instance turns solely on the substantiality of Alabamas interest in obtaining the membership lists. During the course of a hearing before the Alabama Circuit Court on a motion of petitioner to set aside the production order, the State Attorney General presented at length, under examination by petitioner, the States reason for requesting the membership lists. The exclusive purpose was to determine whether petitioner was conducting intrastate business in violation of the Alabama foreign corporation registration statute, and the membership lists were expected to help resolve this question. The issues in the litigation commenced by Alabama by its bill in equity were whether the character of petitioner and its activities in Alabama had been such as to make petitioner subject to the registration statute, and whether the extent of petitioners activities without qualifying suggested its permanent ouster from the State. Without intimating the slightest view upon the merits of these issues, we are unable to perceive that the disclosure of the names of petitioners rank and file members has a substantial bearing on either of them. As matters stand in the state court, petitioner 1 has admitted its presence and conduct of activities in Alabama since 1. Attorney General with varied business records, its charter and statement of purposes, the names of all of its directors and officers, and with the total number of its Alabama members and the amount of their dues. These last items would not on this record appear subject to constitutional challenge and have been furnished, but whatever interest the State may have in obtaining names of ordinary members has not been shown to be sufficient to overcome petitioners constitutional objections to the production order. From what has already been said, we think it apparent that People of State of New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 2. New Leader 3020 G4 Manual. U. S. 6. 3, 4. 9 S. Ct. 6. 1, 7. 3 L. Ed. 1. 84, cannot be relied on in support of the States position, for that case involved markedly different considerations in terms of the interest of the State in obtaining disclosure. There, this Court upheld as applied to a member of a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, a New York statute requiring any unincorporated association which demanded an oath as a condition to membership to file with state officials copies of its constitution, by laws, rules, regulations and oath of membership, together with a roster of its membership and a list of its officers for the current year. N. Y. Laws 1. 92. In its opinion, the Court took care to emphasize the nature of the organization which New York sought to regulate. The decision was based on the particular character of the Klans activities, involving acts of unlawful intimidation and violence, which the Court assumed was before the state legislature when it enacted the statute, and of which the Court itself took judicial notice. Furthermore, the situation before us is significantly different from that in Bryant, because the organization there had made no effort to comply with any of the requirements of New Yorks statute but rather had refused to furnish the State with any information as to its local activities. We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. And we conclude that Alabama has fallen short of showing a controlling justification for the deterrent effect on the free enjoyment of the right to associate which disclosure of membership lists is likely to have. Accordingly, the judgment of civil contempt and the 1.