Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that Ohio had violated the equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of two political parties by refusing to print their candidates' names on the ballot.

Separate suits were brought by the American Independent Party and the Socialist Labor Party, challenging the validity of Ohio election laws insofar as they precluded the parties' being placed on the ballots to choose electors pledged to particular candidates for the presidency and vice presidency of the United States; the attack on the validity of these laws was rested on the ground that they violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—on the ground that they denied plaintiffs and the voters who might wish to vote for them the equal protection of the laws, guaranteed against state abridgment by the Equal Protection Clause of U.S. Const.

The Republican and Democratic parties may retain their ballot positions by polling 10% of the votes in the last gubernatorial election and need not obtain signature petitions.

543), was formed in January 1968, and during the next six months by securing over 450,000 signatures exceeded the 15% requirement but was denied ballot position because the February deadline had expired.

Both Parties brought actions challenging the Ohio election laws as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A three-judge District Court held those laws unconstitutional and ruled that the parties were entitled to write-in space but not ballot position.

The Court held that defendants had failed to show any "compelling interest" that would justify imposing heavy burdens on the right to vote and to associate.

The totality of the Ohio restrictive laws imposed a burden on voting and associational rights, which the court held was invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

II, § 1, of the Constitution to regulate the selection of electors must meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ohio is not at this late date required to place the Socialist Labor Party on the ballot for the coming election.

Justice White also dissented with respect to the American Independent Party, expressing the view that neither the due process clause nor the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited Ohio from requiring that the appointment of presidential electors be carried out through the political party process, and concurred in No.