Constitution Party of South Dakota v. Nelson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9127

Constitution Party of SD and allies challenge SD residency and signature requirements for gubernatorial ballot access ( §§12-5-1.4(1), 12-5-1, 12-1-3(9)).
Requirements: 250 signatures by registered voters in new party; petition circulation limited to in-state residents.
Plaintiffs allege violations of First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Commerce Clause against §12-1-3(9).
District court denied injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for Nelson on Count II (residency challenge).
Appellants appeal the district court’s ruling on standing for Count II; court sua sponte considers standing as jurisdictional.
Court ultimately vacates Part I judgment and remands to dismiss Count II for lack of Article III standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge residency rule	Pickens and others claim injury from inability to circulate petitions in SD	State contends no plaintiff shows concrete injury by the residency rule	No standing; all plaintiffs lacked injury-in-fact and causal link; count dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes injury-in-fact and redressability requirements)
National Wildlife Federation v. Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 955 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir. 1992) (standing at pleading stage requires general allegations; at summary judgment require specific facts)
Pucket v. Hot Springs Sch. Dist. No. 23-2, 526 F.3d 1151 (8th Cir. 2008) (standing is a jurisdictional issue; may be raised sua sponte)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (requires concrete injury and causal connection for standing)
Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Jaeger, 241 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2001) (addressed standing in ballot-access context)
Grillo v. John Alden Ins. Co., 939 F. Supp. 685 (D. Minn. 1996) (discussion of conversion and record treatment on summary judgment)