Crum v. Duran, 36,030

Background

Plaintiff David Crum is a New Mexico qualified voter who declines to state a party (DTS) and was denied a ballot in the June 3, 2014 primary because he was not registered as Democrat or Republican by the 28-day pre-election deadline.
New Mexico law implements a closed primary: voters must be affiliated with a major party to vote in that party’s primary and may only vote for candidates of the party shown on their registration.
Crum sued the Secretary of State and Bernalillo County Clerk seeking an injunction to allow DTS voters to vote in primaries without prior party registration. The Republican Party intervened and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The district court granted the motion to dismiss; the Court of Appeals certified the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
The central legal question: whether the Free and Open Clause (Art. II, § 8) and Article VII, § 1 of the New Mexico Constitution prohibit the State’s closed primary registration requirements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Free and Open Clause entitles all qualified voters to vote in primaries without party registration	Crum: primaries are elections and the Clause makes all elections “free and open” to qualified voters, so DTS voters should be able to vote without registering with a major party	State/RPNM: Legislature may impose reasonable registration and party-affiliation rules to protect election integrity and party associational rights	Held: Clause does not prohibit the closed-primary scheme; the Legislature may impose reasonable registration and affiliation requirements
Whether the 28‑day pre‑primary registration deadline is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote	Crum: deadline effectively disenfranchises DTS voters who decline to designate a party until after the deadline	State: deadline is a modest burden that advances legitimate state interests (administration, purity, preventing fraud/raiding)	Held: 28‑day deadline is a reasonably modest burden and constitutional
Whether requiring party affiliation infringes political parties’ freedom of association	Crum: forcing enrollment burdens associational freedom of DTS voters	RPNM/State: affiliation and registration protect parties’ ability to select their nominees and preserve integrity of primaries	Held: registration/affiliation requirements are permissible and protect party associational interests
Whether New Mexico’s closed primary is the only constitutional system	Crum: (implicit challenge to closed-only system)	State: defends current statute but does not claim exclusivity of closed primaries	Held: Court upholds the current closed system but notes other systems (e.g., open primaries) could also be constitutional

Key Cases Cited

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test: weigh burden on voting against state interests)
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (modest burdens can be justified by important regulatory interests)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (evenhanded restrictions protecting electoral integrity are not invidious)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for assessing burdens on voting rights)
Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (upheld party‑registration deadline as a reasonable cutoff that did not disenfranchise)
Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) (limitations on switching parties may implicate associational interests; analysis of reasonableness)
Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965) (States have broad authority to set non‑discriminatory voter qualifications)
Marston v. Lewis, 410 U.S. 679 (1973) (states may set registration periods to protect electoral processes)