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 Rebecca Cook, Secretary of State, * Missouri; State of Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED] *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 dism issal of his civil action for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 2(b)(6). In Oct ober 1996, Lindstedt filed this lawsuit allegin g-2-

defendants had refused to place him on the ballot as the Libe rtarian candidate for Newton County Sheriff in th e Nove mber 5, 1996 general election, in violation of th e United States Constitution. Lindstedt sought-3-

equitable relief and damages. After a review of th e 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 tha t no relie f could be granted under any set of facts , construing the allegations in the complaint favorably to the pleader.” See County of St. Charles v. Missour i Family Health Council , 107 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir.), cert . denied , 118 S. Ct. 160 (1997). Lindstedt & s pl eadings make it clear that he did not run as a candidate for Newto n County Sheriff in the primary election. Under Missour i law, political parties ordinarily must nominate candidate s through a primary election, se e 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, s ee Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.343 (1994). Lindstedt & s allegations do not indicate that h e qualified as a general election candidate under any of th e provi sions of Missouri law permitting candidates to b e place d on the general election ballot under othe r circumstances. See, e.g. , Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.329 & 36 3 (1994 & Supp. 1997). Examining the Missouri electio n scheme as a whole, see Libertarian Party v. Bond , 764 F.2 d 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 regulat ions of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election- and campaign-relate d disorder”); Burdick v. Takushi , 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (right to vote and right to associate through ballot are not absolute); Munro v. Social ist Workers Party , 479 U.S.-4-

189, 190-91, 196, 199 (1986) ( “State can properly reserve the general election ballot # for major struggles & b y conditioning access to that ballot on a showing of a mo dicumof voter support”; upholding requirement tha t minor-party

candidates for office must receive at least 1 % of votes ca st in State & s primary to qualify for placement on ge neral election ballot); cf. Libertarian Party , 76 4 F.2d at 541-43, 545 (holding Missouri requirements fo r forming new party and placing party on ballot were not-5-

unconstitutionally burdensome or discriminatory)
. Lin dstedt & s other issues raised on appeal are withou t merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.