Independence-Alliance Party of Minn. v. Simon, No. 23-1074 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Independence-Alliance Party of Minnesota, a minor political party, challenged a Minnesota statute that required voters to swear an oath before signing a minor-party nominating petition. The party argued that this requirement violated the First Amendment as it deterred voters from signing nominating petitions, thus, burdening the expressive associational rights of minor political parties, their members, and their candidates.
The court, applying the Anderson-Burdick framework, held that the burden imposed by the oath requirement was insubstantial at most and did not warrant strict scrutiny. The court reasoned that the oath only required potential signatories to express their present intent not to vote at the primary election for the office for which the nominating petition is made, and did not preclude them from changing their intentions in the future. The court also reasoned that voters were expected to understand the law, and therefore, understand the oath's actual meaning. It also noted that the party's complaint did not plausibly allege that the oath requirement prevented signatories from signing nominating petitions with any meaningful frequency.
The court held that any insubstantial burden imposed by the oath requirement was justified by legitimate state interests, such as protecting the democratic voting process by requiring a preliminary showing of support for a candidate, preventing the distortion of the electoral process, promoting election integrity and reliability, and discouraging party raiding. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Independence-Alliance Party's complaint.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Election law. The plaintiff challenged the lawfulness of a Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. Sec. 204B.07, subd. 4, requiring that voters swear an oath before signing a minor-party nominating petition, alleging it violated the First Amendment; the district court declined to apply strict scrutiny because the plaintiff plausibly alleged that "at most" the oath requirement imposed an insubstantial burden on First Amendment associational rights, and the important election interests justified that insubstantial burden. Held: Not every electoral law that burdens associational rights is subject to strict scrutiny, and the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiff's argument that burdens to associational rights automatically are subject to strict scrutiny; the oath does not prevent signers from changing their mind after signing a nominating petition and only requires them to swear it is not their present intention to vote in the upcoming primary; as such, signatories do not violate their oath if they change their minds and the oath is not a severe burden on their associational rights; the insubstantial burden the oath imposes is justified by legitimate state interests in promoting election integrity and reliability by discouraging party raiding and spoiler candidates.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.