In California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) 530 U.S. 567, a major party contended the blanket primary violated its rights of association by forcing it to accept the participation of nonmembers in the selection of its nominees. The Supreme Court agreed, noting, 0 "In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee." (Id. at p. 575.) Because the court found a significant burden on associational rights, it applied strict scrutiny and found the state's asserted interests in support of the blanket primary, including the selection of more centrist candidates in "safe" districts, less than compelling. (Id. at pp. 580, 582, 584.) In addition to finding the state's asserted interests in the blanket primary not compelling, the court noted there was a more narrowly tailored alternative to accomplish the state's purpose: the nonpartisan open primary, followed by a top-two runoff election. (Jones, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 585.) As the court held, the top-two system "has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee. Under a nonpartisan blanket primary, a State may ensure more choice, greater participation, increased 'privacy,' and a sense of 'fairness'--all without severely burdening a political party's First Amendment right of association." (Id. at pp. 585-586.) The Jones court thereby gave its constitutional imprimatur to the top-two system, at least in dictum.