## Facts

- Oklahoma law established a semiclosed primary: a political party could invite to its primary only its registered members and voters registered as Independents.
- The Libertarian Party of Oklahoma (LPO), a recognized political party under state law, sought to open its primary to all registered voters, including registered Republicans and Democrats.
- The Oklahoma State Election Board permitted the LPO to allow Independents to vote in its primary but refused to allow participation by voters registered with other parties.
- The LPO and individual voters registered as Republicans and Democrats sued, alleging the restriction burdened First Amendment rights of political association by preventing desired participation in the Libertarian primary.

## Issues

1. Whether Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary statute, which bars a party from inviting members of other parties to vote in its primary, violates the First Amendment rights of political association and related expressive activity.
2. What level of scrutiny applies under the Anderson–Burdick framework when a party challenges limits on who may participate in its primary.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and upheld the statute.
- The Court held the restriction imposed only a minor (non-severe) burden because voters could participate by registering with the party (or as Independents), and the party remained free to associate with and campaign to other voters outside the primary.
- Because the burden was not severe, Oklahoma’s important regulatory interests were sufficient to justify the reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction.
- The Court accepted state interests including preserving parties as viable and identifiable groups, ensuring primary outcomes reflect the preferences of those affiliated with the party, and reducing risks of strategic crossover voting (“party raiding”).
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Election regulations are evaluated under the Anderson–Burdick balancing approach: the severity of the burden on First Amendment rights determines the level of justification required.
- Severe burdens on associational rights trigger strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
- Lesser burdens may be sustained by important state regulatory interests supporting reasonable, nondiscriminatory rules.
- A state may constitutionally require party-affiliation (or independent status) as a condition for voting in a party primary when the burden is limited and justified by interests in party integrity and accurate party nomination processes.
- Restrictions that limit a party’s ability to invite other parties’ registrants into its primary can be upheld when they do not significantly constrain broader political association or advocacy.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Oklahoma’s semiclosed primary rule constitutionally limited participation to party members and Independents because it imposed only a minor burden on associational rights and was justified by important state interests in party integrity, reliable party nominations, and preventing strategic crossover voting.


Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005)