Opinion ID: 765960
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alaska Libertarian Party

Text: 31 The minor parties also argue that the challenge of the ALP is ripe because it opposes the primary election system as a concept and desires that each party have the right of self control over the nomination of its candidates. However, no allegation was made of how the ALP would otherwise nominate candidates, and there is no indication that it has adopted a procedure which would conflict with the State's blanket primary system. The minor parties argue that the ALP's action is nevertheless ripe due to the fact that the ALP was not (and is not) ballot qualified and therefore could not place candidates on the primary ballot. Therefore, according to this argument, the ALP's candidates for the general election would have to be designated by the ALP, and this would violate state law. However, Alaska statutes provide for the inclusion on both the primary and general election ballots of candidates of a political group (an organization which represents a political program but does not qualify as a party), and these provisions do not contain any requirements relating to how a political group may decide which candidates it supports. See O'Callaghan, 914 P.2d at 1255 n.9; Alaska Stat. SS 15.25.140-205 (Michie 1989). Therefore, the designation of candidates by the ALP, which was not and is not ballot qualified, does not conflict with Alaska law. 32 Because the minor parties cannot demonstrate a substantial controversy . . . of sufficient immediacy and reality, Aydin Corp., 940 F.2d at 528, we affirm the district court's dismissal of their claims for lack of ripeness.