The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the 1

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2892

___________

Martin Lindstedt, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United

States

* District Court for the 

Kay Baum, Newton County Clerk; *

Western District of Missouri.

Rebecca Cook, Secretary of State, *

Missouri; State of Missouri, * 

[UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 26,

1998

 Filed: March 3,

1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Martin Lindstedt appeals from the district court&s

1

dismissal of his civil action for failure to state a

claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In

October 1996, Lindstedt filed this lawsuit alleging
-2-

defendants had refused to place him on the ballot as the

Libertarian candidate for Newton County Sheriff in the

November 5, 1996 general election, in violation of the

United States Constitution. Lindstedt sought
-3-

equitable relief and damages. After a review of the

record and the parties& submissions on appeal, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal,

finding dismissal appropriate only where “it is clear that

no relief could be granted under any set of facts,

construing the allegations in the complaint favorably to

the pleader.” See County of St. Charles v. Missouri

Family Health Council, 107 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 118 S. Ct. 160 (1997). Lindstedt&s pleadings make

it clear that he did not run as a candidate for Newton

County Sheriff in the primary election. Under Missouri

law, political parties ordinarily must nominate candidates

through a primary election, see Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.307

& 339 (1994), and the winner of the primary election for

a party is the only candidate of that party permitted on

the general election ballot, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.343

(1994). Lindstedt&s allegations do not indicate that he

qualified as a general election candidate under any of the

provisions of Missouri law permitting candidates to be

placed on the general election ballot under other

circumstances. See, e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.329 & 363

(1994 & Supp. 1997). Examining the Missouri election

scheme as a whole, see Libertarian Party v. Bond, 764 F.2d

538, 541 (8th Cir. 1985), we see no basis for concluding

that its provisions are unconstitutional under the facts

of this case, see Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party,

117 S. Ct. 1364, 1369 (1997) (“States may, and inevitably

must, enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections,

and ballots to reduce election- and campaign-related

disorder”); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992)

(right to vote and right to associate through ballot are

not absolute); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S.
-4-

189, 190-91, 196, 199 (1986) (“State can properly reserve

the general election ballot #for major struggles& by

conditioning access to that ballot on a showing of a

modicum of voter support”; upholding requirement that

minor-party candidates for office must receive at least 1%

of votes cast in State&s primary to qualify for placement

on general election ballot); cf. Libertarian Party, 764

F.2d at 541-43, 545 (holding Missouri requirements for

forming new party and placing party on ballot were not
-5-

unconstitutionally burdensome or discriminatory).

Lindstedt&s other issues raised on appeal are without

merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.