The August elections included not only primaries for congress and the legislature, but non-partisan judicial races, plus non-partisan local races including school board, assesor, and road superintendent. It was conducted by the state (county) election authorities, and to an ordinary voter would appear to be a state-sponsored and operated activity.

While state law does give a party state primary board the authority to rule on contested primaries, most of that section is about contested general elections which are conducted as judicial proceedings. So can a political party that has a party primary because it is required to by state law, make up rules on the fly after the fact as who may participate in its primary.

For a regular contested election, the alternatives are to declare a winner, or to void the election – that is to decide that there is nobody elected. But state law only provides for replacement of a primary winner in certain cases (death, illness, mental incapacity, moving from a district for a job requirement). So even if the primary was voided, there does not appear to be a right for a party to designate a replacement nominee.

So the issue at the heart of the case is whether a “party” primary is so enmeshed with state law as to be practically indistinguishable. And if so must the political parties observe such niceties as due process in the conduct of their public activities.

A contest of the general election would be decided by the state Senate. Ballots not prepared in compliance with state law and the requirement that party nominees be determined by primary would seem to be reason to set aside the results of the election.