Kanye West, federalism, and party disaffiliation statutes in presidential elections: Idaho edition
Last week, I noted that an Arizona trial court, in my view, got a party disaffiliation requirement wrong in the Kanye West ballot access case. Mr. West may be a registered Republican in Wyoming, but he is not a member of any recognized political party in Arizona. When the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, it did so on a different ground.
There’s a similar challenge in Idaho now. Idaho Code § 34-708A provides, "Such declarations must state that such persons are offering themselves as independent candidates and must declare that they have no political party affiliation." But a “political party” is defined specifically under Idaho law. For instance, "Upon certification by the secretary of state that the petition has met the requirements of this act such party shall, under the party name chosen, have all the rights of a political party whose ticket shall have been on the ballot at the preceding general election." The Republican Party of Wyoming has no such rights in the State of Idaho.
Again, this isn’t a mere technicality. It’s simply that presidential candidates look different because they’re crossing state lines. John Anderson might be a registered Republican in Illinois but could run as an independent candidate in the general election. George Wallace might be a registered Democrat in Alabama but run under the banner of the “American Independent Party.” The Democratic-Farm-Labor Party is unique to Minnesota for Democratic presidential candidates; the U.S. Taxpayers Party is unique to Michigan for the Constitution Party’s candidates. And fusion tickets in state like New York might result in unusual translation of voter registration across states. In a state like Idaho, the only way for the Green Party candidate to get on the ballot is via the independent route—because the Green Party is not recognized in Idaho.
To the extent Mr. West’s petition has other problems, those might well be good reasons to exclude him from the ballot. But on this measure, it’s not.