INDIANAPOLIS — In a set of opinions released by the Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday, a majority of the justices on the court stated that the affiliation statute is not unconstitutional, reversing a Marion County ruling that would have allowed John Rust on the 2024 Republican Primary ballot.
This comes after the Indiana Election Commission found during a late February meeting that Rust was not eligible to be placed on the ballot in the 2024 Republican primary after multiple campaign challenges were filed.
Rust failed to vote in two consecutive Republican primary elections or failed to receive certification to run in the election from a county Republican chairperson, one of which a candidate has to do to be eligible to run for a position under the Indiana Code.
A Marion County judge originally ruled that the portion of the code surrounding political party affiliation was unconstitutional. That ruling was stayed by the Indiana Supreme Court, allowing Rust’s placement on the ballot to be challenged.
As of Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-District 3) is expected to be the only Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate race in May’s primary election.
The court documents, filed on Wednesday in the Indiana Supreme Court, contained three opinions, two of which concurred with the opinion that the affiliation statute was not unconstitutional.
The main opinion, written by Justice Mark Massa and concurred by Justices Geoffrey Slaughter and Derek Molter, stated that the affiliation statute is not unconstitutional and Rust’s arguments “lack merit.”
Massa’s opinion states that the affiliation statute “imposes a reasonable and nondiscriminatory restriction on Rust’s right to be on the primary election ballot.” Massa stressed further that Rust does not have a fundamental right to run as the Republican nominee for the United States Senate, but has a “statutory right to appear on the general-election ballot as an independent, Libertarian or write-in candidate, where Hoosiers can still vote for him.”
“At most, this restriction is a minor impediment, satisfied by simply voting in the last two primaries (or less, actually, so long as in the last two primaries in which Rust voted – whenever they were held – he requested a Republican party ballot),” the opinion read. “We do not find this modest objective criterion for demonstrating party bona fides to be a significant burden.”
In a concurring opinion, Molter stressed that the affiliation statute “does not impermissibly burden” Rust’s First Amendment rights because the requirements from the Indiana Code, becoming a party member or voting in the primaries “was not too onerous for Rust to satisfy.”
“Instead, Rust did not satisfy the requirement because the party exercised its own First Amendment right to deny his membership, and he chose not to vote in the party’s primaries,” Molter said.
In a dissenting opinion, written by Justice Christopher Goff and joined by Chief Justice Loretta Rush, Goff said he believes that the affiliation statute does violate Rust’s First Amendment right of association.
“The Republican Party’s 2024 primary election to select their nominee for United States Senate will feature one candidate,” Goff said. “That person’s nomination will therefore be uncontested. Meanwhile, Rust – who’s donated thousands of dollars to national Republicans, who adhere to the Republican Party platform’s core beliefs and whose participation has been welcomed by his local Republican party – is barred by the statute because he failed to vote in two consecutive Republican Party primaries and the party’s county chairperson has refused to certify him as a party member.”
Goff said that the system does “impose onerous barriers on candidates,” stressing that voters should be able to select nominees, and not just the leaders of the political party. Goff also stated that the state’s current primary system features “a high barrier to candidate entry,” referencing filing fees and petition-signature requirements that could “impose significant barriers to participation for genuine candidates.”
The addition of the two Indiana Code requirements surrounding affiliation adds to the burden, in Goff’s view, stressing that “no other state that uses a primary system like Indiana’s imposes such an onerous affiliation requirement to run for U.S. Senate.”
Ultimately, Goff stresses that adding Rust on the primary ballot does not impose his nomination on the Republican Party, stressing that there is no potential for ballot overcrowding in this case, with Banks now running unopposed.
“While the state has a legitimate interest in regulating the ballot – to avoid voter confusion or party raiding and to preserve the parties’ associational rights – those interests, in my view, fail to justify the onerous burden imposed on Rust,” the dissenting opinion concludes. “…I respectfully dissent from the decision of the Court to uphold the Affiliation Statute as applied to Rust.”
Rust responded to the ruling with the following statement.
“With a 3-2 decision this obviously will eventually have to be settled by the United States Supreme Court for the ultimate decision on the law that bars 81% of Hoosiers from running for office. In the meantime the law was not in effect during the filing timeline so we expect the Indiana Election Commissions unconstitutional removal to be set aside while this is adjudicated.”
John Rust
To look at the 84-page document containing the three opinions, look below:
Comments are closed.