Can an American state ban a (minor) political party?

Question

Can an American state ban a political party?

I am mostly envisioning this as "Democrats and Republicans agree to ban a minor party with really evil views," although the discussion of what would happen if one major party tried to ban the other would be interesting. I get that there are various degrees to this, so that ban might include things like:

• Party X is not allowed to fundraise in the state.
• Party X's members are not allowed to hold office in the state.
• Party X's members are not allowed to be employed by the state.

Answer 1

A state cannot ban a political party for being a political party, no. This would run headlong into the 1st Amendment so hard it would go viral on TikTok.

There are a number of ways that a majority party (or coalition of parties) could de facto ban a rival political party, however.

1. Establish thresholds for appearing on the ballot. This happens in Presidential races already, and is part of why Kanye West did not appear as a presidential candidate in all states. There are rules regarding what constitutes a legitimate candidacy, and requiring that a political party demonstrate some modicum of public support before being allowed to register as a political party. This is backwards to how it is usually done, because the obvious end-run around this method is to simply not register, but continue to organize anyway. This is why the Federal Elections Commission, instead, requires you to register as a political party once you've raised or spent a certain amount of money for federal elections.

2. Declare the party organization/organizers to be criminals. Since political parties can still organize and rally support even if they're not officially on the books or ballot, a more effective strategy is to attack the person(s) doing the organizing directly. Classifying a political party as a 'terrorist organization' is a commonly used example, but the more real-world-common case is simply to arrest opposition leadership. As long as the people you're arresting have actually committed the crimes you're charging them with, and the prosecutions - however convenient - are thus in good faith, this isn't even morally wrong. Not all political parties are seeking power for good reasons, and historical groups like the Nazi Party's "Brown Shirts" did go around committing crimes (usually extortion and assault) in order to advance party goals - arresting these people would hardly be an abuse of power. Going after the leadership of the Black Panther Party, or even Sinn Féin (the political arm of the IRA) is a much less clear cut move.

3. Suppress their voters. Since #1 and #2 rely on you being able to tell a judge - while maintaining a straight face - that you're not doing either of those things for the purpose of preventing a group of people from gathering/organizing to address the government regarding their grievances, you may find yourself in the position of wanting to de facto ban a political party without going after the organization at all. If there are common traits that likely voters for that political party have, you can simply pass laws that make those traits obstacles to voting. Commonly this is done by requiring government ID to be presented at the polling place (minority populations, in particular, tend to not have access to such ID), literacy tests (which were found to be unconstitutional precisely because they were used for exactly this purpose), poll taxes (ditto), make it illegal to provide relief to those standing in line to vote, whatever you can justify in the name of something else.

4. Gerrymandering. Finally, if you're in power, and can draw political districts, then you're in a position to simply make the possibility of a rival political party gaining power go away.

What all of these methods have in common, under current U.S. Jurisprudence, is that in order to be considered legitimate, you can't be doing them for the express and sole purpose of eliminating political opposition. It is allowable for that to be a consequence of something else you're trying to do. This standard was upheld by the Supreme Court in October of 2018 in Department of Commerce v. New York:

The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law, after all, is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.

The "Citizenship Question" was kicked off the U.S. Census for failing this exact standard, but the standard is generally very, very deferential to the government's claims.

Answer 2

Yes, and they already have

This isn't universally applicable to all political parties, but the answer is simply Yes, because Texas already has done so, banning communists in the 2nd and 3rd ways described in your question.

The law is given here: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.557.htm

As such, you can understand why this is irksome for The Communist Party of Texas.

Answer 3

One specific development which has been accused of putting up a barrier to third-party participation in presidential elections in the US, is the management of the televised debates.

These were which went from being controlled the League of Women Voters, which was non-partisan, to being controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which while nominally non-partisan, is in practice bi-partisan, as it was founded jointly by the chairs of the RNC and DNC.

The CPD has been criticized for effectively setting the bar for participation such that third parties are prevented from getting the recognition that would allow the public to learn about them and enable their growth.

Attempts by third parties to challenge this system in court, so far, have failed.

---

Regarding State and Local politics:

It may vary by state, but at least here in NYS, it is actually fairly easy for a third-party candidate to get their name on a state and local ballot. The substantial barrier is applying on time with a modest number of signatures, which a few hundred volunteers can gather with a focused effort, in about a month. I have participated in this kind of effort, and would say, anecdotally, that nearly half of voters are supportive, in principle, of the idea of having more choices at the ballot, even if they might not go on to vote for the minor party.

Answer 4

No. But from personal experience, a group of legitimate individuals can claim that the people representing the party are fraudulent or illegitimate. In California, a party first registers with the Secretary of State, expressing intent to qualify for the ballot. A group of contacts for the party is required to be the liaison with the SoS. If the individuals do not keep in contact with the SoS or are sketchy (in this actual case, an international cult run by a con man using the name in fundraising), the SoS can qualify a new set of contacts. In the real case, this was done because the group had not actually done voter registration or other electoral work for years. But, taking the issue of their illegitimacy to court was also considered.