conclude N.D.C.C. § 16.1 — 11— 36 imposes a substantial burden on the LPND and candidates’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by restricting their access to the general elections ballot. However, this substantial burden is not necessarily undue or excessive. An undue burden, which essentially removes all realistic chance for a minor party or independent candidate to ever access the general election ballot, cannot be justified by any state interest, regardless of how compelling the interest may be. Am. Party of Tex., 415 U.S. at 787-88, 94 S.Ct. 1296; MacBride v. Exon, 558 F.2d 443, 449 (8th Cir.1977). Thus, a ballot access statute imposing an undue burden is necessarily unconstitutional. In alleging N.D.C.C. § 16.1-11-36 is unduly burdensome, the LPND and candidates foc S.Ct. 1296 (<HOLDING>); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 432, 91
holding that the use of the term protection in the ballot title did not constitute impermissible political or emotional rhetoric holding a 1 signature requirement as within the outer boundaries of support the state may require before affording political parties ballot position recognizing howard holding that fiction of a state within a state has no validity to prevent exercise of power by state over federal area within its boundaries so long as there is no interference with federal jurisdiction recognizing federal enclave remains within geographic boundaries of state holding that the determination of the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state is a political question solely within the power prerogative and discretion of the legislature and not subject to judicial review