A group of Wyoming voters, former political candidates and a retired lawmaker are challenging several state election laws in a sweeping complaint filed in Laramie County District Court this month.
Originally filed in August, the lawsuit initially sought to overturn the state’s prohibition on failed primary candidates appearing on the general election ballot as independents, known as a “sore loser law.”
Now, the plaintiffs are also challenging the state’s closed primary election system and its limits on how and when Wyoming voters may affiliate with a political party, according to an amended complaint filed April 18.
The laws violate the Wyoming Constitution’s guarantee of “political equality,” the plaintiffs argue, and “impermissibly discriminate against candidates and voters not affiliated with a major political party.”
Among the plaintiffs are Matt Malcom of Laramie County and Jeff Thomas of Platte County. Both ran as Republicans for legislative seats but lost in the 2024 primary election. And state law prevented both from running as independent candidates in the general election.
Jim Roscoe, a former independent lawmaker from Wilson, and Jim Rooks, a former Jackson Town Council member, are also plaintiffs in the case alongside Joshua Malcom, a registered voter of Laramie County, and Christina Kitchen, a registered voter of Teton County.
The suit names Chuck Gray, in his capacity as secretary of state, as the defendant. Gray did not respond to WyoFile’s request for comment by press time. Previously, he said he supported the law prohibiting primary election runner-ups from running as independents in the general election.
“The statute is there for a good reason,” Gray told WyoFile last August.
How we got here
For decades, Wyoming had a partially open primary election system. That meant voters were restricted to casting ballots in races that aligned with their political party affiliation, which they were allowed to change on election day and during most of the early voting period.
The one time voters couldn’t change affiliation included the two weeks leading up to election day. Then in 2023, Wyoming lawmakers extended that period to 96 days leading up to the primary election in order to ban what’s known as crossover-voting.
The new timeline lines up with the candidate filing period, requiring voters to affiliate with a party before the slate of candidates has been finalized.
Supporters said the law was needed to stop registered Democrats, minor party and unaffiliated voters from changing their party affiliation in order to participate as Republicans in the primary election.
They also pointed to the 2018 primary election when Gov. Mark Gordon secured the Republican nomination in the governor’s race. Gordon’s opponents said he was only able to win due to the support of “crossover” Democrats. Those claims were shown to be statistically unfounded, but endured nonetheless.
Plaintiffs
The new party affiliation law prevented Joshua Malcom, one of the plaintiffs, from casting a vote for his brother, Matthew, in the 2024 primary election for House District 61.
Joshua is a Laramie County unaffiliated voter because he “does not wish to be a member of any political party,” according to the suit. As a result, however, Joshua could not cast a vote for his preferred candidate, his brother, because he is not a registered Republican.
Joshua was further precluded from doing so when Matthew was not allowed to run as an independent candidate, the lawsuit states.
Enacted in 1973, Wyoming’s “sore loser law” stipulates “an unsuccessful candidate for office at a primary election whose name is printed on any party ballot may not accept nomination for the same office at the next general election.”
In Teton County, plaintiff Christina Kitchen was prevented from voting for her brother-in-law, Jim Rooks, when he ran as a Democrat for the Teton County Commission in 2024. Kitchen was a registered Republican at the time.
“The ability to change affiliation to vote in the primary of her choice has been and remains important to Kitchen because of her desire to vote for the person she deems most qualified and who supports her views rather than those who are affiliated with a particular political party,” according to the complaint.
The law also prohibited Rooks, another plaintiff in the case, from running as an independent in the general election after he lost his primary election bid.
In 2022, Jim Roscoe declined to seek reelection for House District 22, which he’d represented as the Legislature’s sole independent. That lack of an affiliation has prevented him from participating in Wyoming’s primary elections.
Roscoe believes, according to the lawsuit, that Wyoming’s major political parties “have become increasingly dominated by platforms and views of those in control of the national parties, extreme in their views, rhetoric, and actions, and unduly hostile to the members of opposing parties.”
As such, he “has an interest in and believes that giving Wyoming voters a greater number of candidate choices and more opportunities to elect independent candidates unaffiliated with any political party will help moderate the above-described trends he sees in Wyoming’s political parties.”
The complaint
The lawsuit highlights several sections of the Wyoming Constitution, including its “Equal Political Rights” provision.
“Since equality in the enjoyment of natural and civil rights is only made sure through political equality, the laws of this state effecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, sex, or any other circumstance or condition whatsoever (emphasis added by plaintiffs) other than individual incompetency, or unworthiness duly ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction,” Article 1, Section 3 reads.
The complaint also points to other sections of the constitution that require the Legislature to craft laws so that “the names of all candidates for the same office, to be voted for at any election, shall be printed on the same ballot,” and that “elections shall be open, free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent an untrammeled exercise of the right of suffrage.”
As such, the plaintiffs are asking the court for a declaratory judgment, or to clarify their legal rights and the obligations of the state.
Open Primary using ranked choice voting should be the law of the sagebrush jungle. Neither Wyoming’s population or diversity are large enough to warrant purely partisan primaries. All candidates for an office should appear on the same ballot for that office, just as the law clearly states. How else could it be ?
Candidates can still openly declare their partisanship and platform . In fact , open ranked choice voting would penalize them for not doing so. The real benefit is having a wider audition of choices , not just R or D or whatever I represents. We need to see the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists in the medley.
How else will a candidate who wants to run on the Green Party platform get a chance ? If we were being honest about it , the Freedom Caucus should do the far right thing and form their own party—the Christian Nationalists — since any allusion they are Republicans these days is utter fallacy.
If Wyoming want to keep calling itself the Equality State, open primaries and ranked choice balloting certifies that. A more parliamentary state legislature works for me.
Another benefit of open primaries: encouraging candidates to appeal to – at least a little bit – to the other side. We need that versus candidates who only appeal to the extreme ends of their parties.
Jim Roscoe’s remarks are spot-on, as are the arguments the plaintiffs make in their lawsuit. If ever there was a lawsuit about our political and voting rights that deserves to win, this is it.
Our current closed-primary election system was put into place by the most enthusiastic members of the state Republican party. It, combined with the “sore loser” law, harnesses the power of the state to help impose upon all Wyomingites the ideological purity of the Republican party. These same Republican leaders fashion themselves as champions of individual freedom, even as they diminish the political freedom of Wyoming voters.
Until recently, large banners on the eastern side of War Memorial Stadium at UW proclaimed, “Bucking the system since 1886.” The phrase is popular throughout the state, beyond the UW campus; it’s one of the things that we Wyomingites seem to believe about ourselves. Whatever the system is that we’re bucking, clearly it is not a rigid partisan political system. Instead, with our closed-primary elections and “sore loser” law, we buttress that system.
It looks to me like the “sore loser” law was introduced by the sore losers. Any attempt to disenfranchise voters is based on the fear that the parties behind the attempt will lose if they don’t stop people from voting. And this, from the Equality State.
I know locally in the primary a Freedom Caucus candidate beat the incubate by a small margin. If the incubate had been able to run as an independent in the general election, I think there was a good chance they could have won both because of more republican voters voting, but also because Democrats would have voted from him over the Freedom Caucus candidate (there was no Democrat running against them). So how does this system truly represent the Wyoming voters when a small minority of voters can decide in the primary who wins in the general election. I’m sure there are many, many elections in this state decided in the primary election which is why I am a democrat registered as a republican – so I can actually have voice in elections!
Wyoming’s “free and fair” claim to its electoral process has been broken for some time. I have been a registered voter since 1972, when I first became old enough to vote. I’ve always voted for the candidates I felt were going to do the most for we the people. As an unaffiliated voter, I can’t vote in the primary. I get turned away from the polls. Any affiliated candidate I wanted to support, has to win that primary without my vote and the votes of many other Wyomingites just like me. We have to wait until the general election and vote for what is, more often than not, a decision between the lesser of two evils. Which is really no decision at all. To me that is probably one of the most glaring factors why many Wyomingites choose not to vote at all. I know Wyoming is primarily a Republican controlled state. However, why should I be prevented from voting for a Republican of my own choice in the primary? Forcing a partisan commitment to one of only two parties and their respective candidates is not “free and fair”. Passing laws that favor one party simply because it is presently in power, is definitely not “free and fair”. In my opinion, it proves weakness, fear and a lack of confidence in the ideology of their own platform. If one side has to cheat unaffiliated voters out of their right to vote in the primary, in order for their side to win an election, then they are no better than a card sharp dealing off the bottom of the deck. The part that truly hacks me off, is that they think the people of Wyoming are so stupid, that by making unconstitutional “election rules” we will eventually relinquish the rest of our rights to their control. If that’s what they honestly think, then they do not deserve to be in power, because they obviously don’t know Wyoming or its electoral history. My great grandmother cast her first vote for the statehood of Wyoming at a time when most women in this country were not allowed to vote. Last time I looked, we were not called the maga state, but “The Equality State”. Maybe they’ll try to politically change that too? Like they have the Gulf of Mexico?
Thank you William. You nailed it and I suspect the same oral argument will be formalized by the plaintiffs addressing the court.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you to these people for challenging these restrictions on my right to vote!
I chime in with Cindy. I appreciate the initiative and courage of these people who are pushing back against these limitations on our right to select good candidates for office, instead of being forced to vote for those who meet some “ideological purity” test developed by a small group of people in our state (or by a national group with their own agenda).
What about doing away with the rigid party rules altogether and have ranked choice voting? Anyone can vote for their top three choices, regardless of the candidate or voter’s party. The top vote getter wins. It’s been tried in other areas to good success. The upside (and downside, depending on perspective) is that RCV moves away from party power grabs and ever straightening laws on who can appear on a ballot or vote and when.
This such a stupid law founded in ignorance and fear by ruling party. One should be able to vote as one sees fit in any election any time. I am independent and vote for who I feel is best candidate or what policy is best for me. Not what damn party wants who or what. RESPECT ALL VOTERS!!!
Sue Mr. California all the way back to California. We should have ranked choice voting. It’s time to put this nonsense to rest.
Christina Kitchen, you go girl!!!