On September 29, a lower state court in Arizona heard testimony in a lawsuit over whether Olivia Cortes should remain on the ballot in the upcoming recall election of State Senate President Russell Pearce. See this story. In Arizona, when a recall petition succeeds, the office-holder being recalled is on the ballot, along with any other candidates who have petitioned to run in the same recall election. The election is non-partisan. The person who gets the most votes wins.

Three candidates are on the ballot: Pearce, an opponent of Senator Pearce (who hopes to out-poll Pearce) and a third candidate, Olivia Cortes. Evidence suggests that Cortes only got on the ballot with the help of Pearce supporters, that she is a “sham” candidate, as the story makes clear. Pearce supporters know that Pearce is unpopular with most Hispanic voters, and presumably put Cortes on the ballot to split the anti-Pearce vote. However, there is no logical or legal principle that would eliminate someone from the ballot, based on her motivation or on who helped get her on the ballot. The pending case is somewhat similar to a case in Arizona in 2010, when the Green Party went to court to remove some of its nominees from the ballot on the grounds that they were “sham” candidates, recruited by Republican activists. Although some of the 2010 “sham” Greens voluntarily withdrew, the court ruled that there was no legal basis to remove candidates from the ballot, no matter what their motivation for running. A decision in the current case is expected on Monday, October 3.