As of December 1, all briefs have been filed in Constitution Party of Kansas v Biggs, U.S. District Court, 10-cv-4043. The Constitution Party is not ballot-qualified in Kansas, but it has members in Kansas, and they wish to register as members of the Constitution Party. The Kansas registration form does not permit this. It has a checkbox for each of the 4 qualified parties, and a checkbox for people who wish to register as independents. But it does not have a write-in line on the form for anyone to register into an unqualified party.
The brief for the Kansas Secretary of State implies that the Constitution Party is demanding that the names of all unqualified parties be printed on the form, but the Constitution Party’s reply brief makes it clear that the Constitution Party is only seeking a write-in line on the form, and that elections officials tally those registrations for unqualified parties that have been politically active in the state. The Constitution Party has placed its presidential candidate on the Kansas ballot in each of the last two presidential elections, even though it wasn’t ballot-qualified.
The four ballot-qualified parties in Kansas currently are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Reform. The 10th circuit ruled back in 1984 that Colorado must permit members of unqualified parties to register as members of those parties, if the unqualified parties were politically active in Colorado. Kansas is also in the 10th circuit.
Kansas and Nebraska are the only states in the nation which have registration by party, and which do not print a write-in line under “political party” on the voter registration form, and which will never print the names of any unqualified parties on the form. Nebraska is in the 8th circuit, not the 10th circuit, and no one has sued Nebraska over this issue.
Separate is NOT equal — in all circuits all the time.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
Still trying to find any mention of party hack factions in the nearly dead U.S.A. Constitution.
Why does Kansas keep registration records of members of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Reform parties? Is is it so that they can administer primaries? Since they don’t administer a Constitution party primary, they have no reason to maintain affiliation records.
How would Kansas decipher the handwriting as to whether someone is Communist or a Constitutionist? And then Kansas has to tally the results, and decide which parties to tally the results, all for no benefit to the State.
Oklahoma is also in the 10th Circuit. After the decision with regard to Colorado, the 10th Circuit ruled in the opposite direction in an Oklahoma case. Kansas is arguing that their situation is different from that in Colorado where it was much more difficult for a party to qualify than in Kansas.
The 10th circuit initially ruled that Oklahoma didn’t need to let people register into an unqualified party because at the time, only 3 counties had computerized voter registration records.
After all Oklahoma counties computerized their records, the Libertarian Party went back to court in this time won the case and forced Oklahoma to let people register into unqualified parties. That case is Atherton v Ward.
The Kansas Libertarian and Reform Parties do not nominate by primary. They nominate by convention. Lists of registered voters are very valuable lists for parties, whether they have a primary or not. They enable the party to learn of the existence of people who obviously are sympathetic to the party. That is why courts in New Jersey, New York, Iowa, Colorado and Oklahoma have ruled that states must let voters register into unqualified parties. The lists are very useful to the parties, major and minor alike.
The Kansas Libertarian and Reform parties failed to receive 5% of the vote for governor. If they had not so failed, they would nominate by primary. Further, Kansas requires that recognized parties that nominate by convention either be by direct or delegate conventions of voters affiliated with the party. Maintaining the party registration helps Kansas ensure that the minor party nominations are made by the party voters and not by the Libertarian and Reform party bosses.
Kansas has determined that party nominations should be made by voters affiliated with a party, whether by convention or primary. This is the State interest in maintaining party registration records.
Atherton v Ward was a district court decision, and it is more difficult for a political party to gain and maintain recognition in Oklahoma than in Kansas. This was also an issue in the Colorado case.
Kansas has no law that tells minor parties that they must only allow registered members to vote at nominating conventions.
All minor parties that have been on the ballot in Kansas in the last 56 years have nominated by convention. Post #4 seems to think that there is something typical about minor party primaries in Kansas, when actually there haven’t been any since 1954.
Didn’t the Reform Party get taken over by the CP? If that is the case, why waste time and money with the lawsuit? They would have a party with everything except the name of the party?
#5 25-301 and 25-302, but perhaps you have a more creative interpretation.
No 3rd party candidate for governor of Kansas has received over 5% of the vote since 1914 (Christina Campbell-Cline was an independent). If the current law had been in effect during that time, the last 3rd party primary would have been in 1916.
I don’t know why you would think that my noting of the failure of the Libertarian and Reform party to get 5% of the vote in 2010, would suggest that was atypical.