Case: The Idaho Republican Pa v. Ysursa

This case addressed the issue of whether the State of Idaho’s use of an open primary system to determine nominees for the general election violated the Idaho Republican Party’s (Plaintiffs) First Amendment right to associate.  

Prior to the suit, Idaho Code § 34-904 provided for a single primary election ballot to be provided to all electors, regardless of whether the elector is affiliated with any political party, thus allowing the elector to choose which party candidates which candidates they would cast a vote for.  

On June 2, 2007, the Idaho Republican Party State Central Committee adopted a rule that required persons to register as a Republican prior to the Primary Election in order to vote on an Idaho Republican Party ballot in that Primary Election.  This Closed Republican Party Primary Rule was adopted as a response to non-Republicans who were selected as party candidates by non-Republican voters in the Primary Election.  

On April 11, 2008, the Idaho Republican Party (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court District of Idaho against then Secretary of State of the State of Idaho, Ben Ysursa, in his official capacity.  The Plaintiff feared that allowing non-Republicans to select Republican candidates would force the Idaho Republican Party to associate with non-Party members.  In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the closed Republican Party Primary Rule directly conflicts with Idaho’s Open Primary Election System.  Plaintiff further alleged that the State of Idaho continued enforcement of Open Elections Law violated its freedom of association right by forcing it to associate with non-Republicans.  In its complaint, Plaintiff requested declaratory relief establishing its right to identify those who associate with the Party and exclude those who do not.  Plaintiff also requested that the Idaho Open Primary Election Law, Idaho Code §34-740 as implemented by the Idaho Secretary of State under the provisions of Idaho Code §34-740 be declared unconstitutional. 

On July 1, 2008, the following individuals and organizations filed a motion to intervene as defendants-intervenors: Mitch Campbell, John Haight, Andrew Logsdon, Launa Noble, LaMar Orton, Boyd Stoke, and Laura Pike Campbell of Twin Falls, Idaho; Calvin Leman of Salmon, Barbara Nelson and Jason Ramsey of Filer, Idaho; Joseph Britton of Jerome, Idaho; the American Independent Movement of Idaho, LLC (“AIM”); and the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, Inc. (“CUIP”) (collectively “Defendant-Intervenors”).  Defendant-Intervenors claimed that because they do not align with any party, they should not be forced to register with a party prior to selecting candidates at a primary.   

Plaintiff moved to dismiss the case on July 25, 2008, claiming that Defendant-Intervenors lacked standing.  On August 8, 2008, Defendant-Intervenors replied to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, claiming they had standing to challenge a voting system that excludes them.  Plaintiff, again, challenged Defendants-Intervenors standing in its Sur-Reply to the Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Motion to Intervene.  The court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss for Intervention as Defendant-Intervenors on August 13, 2008.

Defendant-Intervenors, Defendant Ben Ysursa, and Plaintiff each filed Motions for Summary Judgment.  The court heard oral arguments on the motions on February 18, 2009.  On September 4, 2009, the court denied all three motions because each lacked evidence to support the claims that there was no genuine dispute of material fact.  In its rationale, the court likened this case to California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000).  In Jones, the Supreme Court held that the California’s blanket primary violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment right of association because it “forced political parties ‘to adulterate their candidate-selection process- the basic function of a political party – by opening it up to persons wholly unaffiliated with their party.” Jones, 530 U.S. at 581.  However, the court found that this case differed from Jones in that it lacked quantifiable evidence to prove that Idaho’s elections process violated its First Amendment right to association.  

On September 23, 2010, Parties filed a Stipulation and Motion to Vacate Trial and Present the Matter to the Court Upon Written Submission.  Parties also submitted trial briefs to be read and decided upon by the court.  

On March 2, 2011, the district court found that Plaintiffs met their burden and concluded that Idaho Code §§ 34-904 was unconstitutional as applied to the Idaho Republican Party.  The court relied on Jones and shared Plaintiff’s concerns about “cross-over” voting and opening up “candidate selection process to persons wholly unaffiliated with the Party.  And, like the blanket primary [in Jones], the current open primary system in Idaho forces the Idaho Republican Party to open-up its candidate-selection process to persons wholly unaffiliated with the Party.  And, like the blanket primary, ‘[s]uch forced association has the likely outcome . . . of changing the [party’s] message.”  Id. At 581-82.  

Defendant-Intervenors filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which was granted on September 19, 2011.  The case was dismissed in its entirety on September 21, 2011.   

This case is closed.