The Wyoming Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision Thursday upholding the state’s 96‑day party‑affiliation deadline that bars voters from switching parties ahead of primary elections. The court found the restriction does not impose an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote and complies with equal‑protection guarantees.
Court’s Reasoning
In its opinion, the justices balanced the individual’s right to vote against the legislature’s duty to “secure the purity of elections” and to guard against abuses of the elective franchise. The court concluded that the deadline is a slight, uniform burden that serves a legitimate state interest.
Justice Kari Gray authored the opinion, noting that the Wyoming Constitution directs the legislature to pass laws that keep elections “open, free and equal” while also protecting the franchise. The court held that the 96‑day freeze meets both constitutional mandates by providing clear notice to voters and applying the same rule to every elector.
Background of the Law
Wyoming enacted the crossover‑voting ban in 2023, aligning the party‑affiliation deadline with the candidate‑filing period. The law requires voters to declare or change party affiliation at least 96 days before a primary, preventing last‑minute switches that could influence primary outcomes.
Supporters argue the measure stops registered Democrats, minor‑party members, and unaffiliated voters from temporarily joining the Republican Party to win primary contests. They contend that such “crossover voting” can undermine the integrity of party nominations, though statistical analyses have shown no clear link between crossover voting and the defeat of more conservative candidates.
Reactions
Secretary of State Chuck Gray praised the ruling, calling it “a huge win for Wyoming elections, which we have consistently worked to defend.” Gray was named as the defendant in the lawsuit.
Bill Schwartz, attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment that the court did not give “fundamental voting rights the pre‑eminent weight we believe our founders intended.” He added that the decision reflects the court’s view that the judiciary should defer to the legislature’s authority over election regulation.
Schwartz also indicated that his clients hope the incoming legislature will consider reforming what they described as “unnecessarily restrictive election laws implemented in recent years by the right wing of the Republican party.”
Legal History
The lawsuit, filed in 2024, originally challenged Wyoming’s “sore loser” law, which bars primary losers from running as independents in the general election. In 2025 the plaintiffs expanded the case to include challenges to the state’s closed primaries and party‑affiliation restrictions. After a Laramie County District Court upheld the statutes as a valid exercise of legislative power, the case moved to the state’s highest court.
During oral arguments in June, plaintiffs cited two sections of the Wyoming Constitution protecting the “untrammeled exercise of the right of suffrage” and guaranteeing “equal political rights.” The state’s attorney general’s office countered that the case centered on the state’s interest in preserving election purity, not on voting rights per se.
Implications for Voters
The decision confirms that Wyoming voters must adhere to the 96‑day deadline when changing party affiliation for primary elections. The court emphasized that the rule does not lock voters into a party; it simply requires advance notice of any change.
With the November general election approaching, the ruling ensures that the current election framework remains in place, providing consistency for candidates, parties, and voters alike.
Original reporting: Alexandria, VA News – WTOP News — read the source article.
