Crum v. Duran
2017 NMSC 13
| N.M. | 2017Background
- David Crum, a New Mexico voter registered as "declines to state" (DTS), sought to vote in the June 3, 2014 primary without changing his party registration and was denied because he was not registered as Democrat or Republican by the 28-day deadline (May 6, 2014).
- New Mexico law establishes a closed primary: only voters affiliated with a major political party may vote in that party’s primary, and voters may only vote for candidates of the party designated on their registration (NMSA §§ 1-12-7(B)-(C), 1-4-5.1(F)).
- Crum sued the Secretary of State and the Bernalillo County Clerk seeking an injunction to allow DTS voters to vote in primaries without party registration, arguing the Free and Open Clause (Art. II, § 8) and Article VII, § 1 entitle qualified voters to participate.
- The Republican Party of New Mexico moved to dismiss, asserting party associational interests; the district court granted dismissal, and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the closed primary statutes unconstitutionally burden voting or association rights and whether the State’s registration deadlines are justified.
- The Court held the 28-day pre-election party-registration requirement and restriction to vote only for candidates of one’s registered party impose only modest burdens and are justified by the State’s interests in election integrity and administration; it affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Free and Open Clause/Article VII §1 entitles all qualified voters (including DTS) to vote in primary elections without party registration | Crum: primaries are "elections" under Art. II §8; all qualified voters should be able to vote in primaries without affiliating | State/RPNM: Legislature may impose registration/party-affiliation rules to protect election integrity and parties’ associational rights | Held: Primaries may be limited by reasonable registration/party-affiliation rules; Art. II §8 does not prohibit New Mexico’s closed primary scheme |
| Whether the 28-day pre-primary party-registration deadline is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote | Crum: deadline prevents DTS voters from participating and infringes voting rights | State: deadline is a modest, reasonable burden necessary for recordkeeping, administration, and protecting purity of elections | Held: 28-day deadline is a modest burden and constitutionally permissible |
| Whether restricting primary votes to the party listed on a voter’s registration violates voters’ rights | Crum: restriction denies qualified voters access to primary choice | State/RPNM: restriction preserves party autonomy and prevents interference with party nomination processes | Held: Restriction is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulation that furthers State and party interests |
| Whether closed primary system infringes political parties’ freedom of association | RPNM: allowing DTS voters would intrude on internal party selection and association | Crum: individual voting rights outweigh associational concerns here | Held: Requirement to be a registered party member before voting protects party associational interests and is constitutionally permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (framework weighing burden on voting against State interests in election regulation)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (modest burdens on voting generally 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) (balancing test for evaluating restrictions on voting rights)
- Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (upholding registration deadline for party enrollment as a reasonable cutoff)
- Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965) (States have broad power to prescribe voter qualifications)
- Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) (limitations on switching party primaries require close scrutiny)
- Ziskis v. Symington, 47 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 1995) (registering with a party is a minimal burden and demonstrates commitment to that party)