Whether an unnecessarily confusing oath requirement in a minor political party candidate's nominating petition to gain access to the ballot is subject to strict scrutiny analysis under the First Amendment despite the Anderson-Burdick framework because the State's interest is only in the requisite number of petition signatories and because the unnecessarily confusing oath has limited political participation

QUESTION PRESENTED The oath of Minnesota Statutes § 204B.07, subd. 4 is unnecessarily confusing because it requires an intent not to vote in the primary, and because it does not contain the words “at the present time;” some people will not sign because they think, if they sign, they can’t vote in the primary, “I solemnly swear (or affirm) ... that I do not intend to vote at the primary election for the office for which this nominating petition is made...” Id. The question presented is: Whether an unnecessarily confusing oath requirement in a minor political party candidate’s nominating petition to gain access to the ballot is subject to strict scrutiny analysis under the First Amendment despite the Anderson-Burdick framework because the State’s interest is only in the requisite number of petition signatories and because the unnecessarily confusing oath has limited political participation.