whether and how the designation Reform Party Minnesota will confuse voters or work to the advantage of one candidate over another. We might speculate that a voter would not be able to distinguish the candidates based on the similarity in party name. However, those interested in Reform Party candidates would arguably be aware of the split in the party over the nomination of these candidates, which was widely reported in the media. See, e.g., Muriel Dobbin, Buchanan Schism May Kill Reform Party, Star Tribune, Sept. 17, 2000, at A26; Mark Helm, Hearst Newspapers, Buchanan Is Awarded Federal Election Money, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Sept. 13, 2000, at 10A. Thus, while there exists some potential for confusion, we are left to speculate as to its magnitude and significance to vot 93, 96 (1902) (<HOLDING>). Thus, this court has not in the past ordered
holding that in an armslength transaction there is no duty on either party to act for the benefit or protection of the other party holding petition nominating candidate under social democratic party violated party name protection act holding petition nominating candidate under socialist party violated the act where socialist labor party was entitled to protection of party name protection act holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that in a situation where the police have probable cause to arrest one party and reasonably mistake a second party for that first party the arrest of the second party is still a valid arrest