In October 2022, I sat quietly in the back of the Wyoming Supreme Court chamber during oral arguments in Conrad et al. v Uinta County Republican Party.
This was my first time observing the court in session. It didn’t take a legal degree to see things weren’t going well for the Party. Their attorney tried to argue that a Wyoming election statute was unconstitutional – but had not raised that issue in earlier proceedings.
Justice Keith Kautz noted that if the Republican Party found the statute so objectionable, it could simply stop being a “major political party.” That moment stuck with me – not just for its legal clarity, but for what it says about the Party’s current position.
The Wyoming Republican Party claims that certain state statutes – like those regulating when county party elections must happen, who can vote in them, or how candidates are nominated to fill public office vacancies – violate its First Amendment rights as a private organization.
That may sound like a compelling argument.
After all, private associations have the right to govern their own internal affairs.
But political parties aren’t just private clubs. When they accept state-granted privileges and participate in taxpayer-funded elections, they step into a public role – and with that comes reasonable regulation.
This isn’t just opinion. It is backed by nearly a century of US Supreme Court precedent.
In Smith v Allwright (1944), the high court ruled that Texas’ all-white primaries violated constitutional protections because the party was performing a public function.
In California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), the court struck down a blanket primary law for infringing on party rights – but reaffirmed the state’s ability to regulate how public elections are conducted.
In Clingman v. Beaver (2005), Oklahoma’s semi-closed primary system was upheld because it struck a fair balance between party autonomy and the state’s interest in orderly elections.
The core legal principle is this: when political parties act as gatekeepers to the public ballot, the state has a compelling interest in ensuring transparency, consistency, and fairness.
Wyoming’s statutes do exactly that.
Our laws define “major political parties” and give them exclusive access to state-run partisan primaries. The state pays to run the elections. It allows those parties to submit nominees when vacancies arise in public offices.
That is a remarkable level of access, influence, and benefit. And it is not free. Just like any public-private partnership, the deal comes with terms.
What the Wyoming Republican Party is really arguing is not about freedom—it is about wanting the perks without the responsibilities. It wants exclusive access to the primary ballot but not the oversight that ensures fair elections.
Its leaders want authority in filling vacancies, but not the legal procedures that come with that authority. Those leaders want to be treated as a private association when convenient and a public actor when it suits their interests.
But as Justice Kautz so aptly pointed out, they have options.
Option one: stop being a “major political party.” There is nothing stopping the Republican Party from removing itself from the statutory structure. It could operate entirely outside the state-administered primary system and nominate candidates through private caucuses.
Option two: propose changes to state law. If the Party truly wants to be treated like a private association, it should give up the privileges that come with being a public one.
That means removing its monopoly on the partisan primary ballot. That means stepping away from its role in public elected office vacancy appointments. In short, that means supporting a shift to an open primary system—like the nonpartisan, top-two approach already used in Wyoming’s municipal elections.
In that model, all candidates run in a single primary regardless of party.
Voters of all affiliations get to participate. And the top two finishers move to the general election. The state doesn’t have to regulate party rules because party labels no longer control who gets ballot access. It’s clean, simple and constitutional.
Let’s be clear: the current Wyoming statutes are not unconstitutional. They are consistent with long-standing legal precedent and reflect the state’s obligation to run fair, secure elections.
What the GOP is experiencing is not a violation of rights – it’s the discomfort of having to choose between power and independence.
You can’t complain about house rules when you are living rent-free. And if you don’t like the deal, don’t sue the homeowner – walk out the door.
Or better yet, change the system. But don’t pretend it’s not legal just because you don’t like the terms.
That’s not constitutional law; that’s just politics.
