On August 15, the 9th circuit denied Arizona’s request for a rehearing en banc in Nader v Brewer. The decision had come down on July 9. The decision had struck down Arizona’s ban on out-of-state circulators, and had also struck down the early June petition deadline for independent candidates. Presumably the Arizona Secretary of State will now ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case.
So, could this decision help Paul Jacob in his Oklahoma case?
Yes! Don’t forget the 10th circuit also hears arguments on whether the US Constitution protects out-of-state petitioners, on September 25. The 10th circuit includes Oklahoma. If that wins, obviously Paul Jacob would be free of this, no matter what the state courts do about his particular criminal case.
Seems to me, the real value of this case is in its treatment of Anderson v Celebrezze. Even though Celebreeze is often cited as authoritative, its actual rationale is just as often ignored. Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party is probably the most eggregious example of that.
In Nader v Brewer the Ninth Circuit took extra pains to declare that the concerns that informed Celebrezze, lack of voter interest early in the campaign cycle, difficulty in recruiting volunteers and the difficulty of responding to late developments in the election contest itself, are all significant factors in determining whether a ballot access structure is significantly burdensome.