The Fourth Circuit has set a briefing schedule in Sarvis v Alcorn, 15-1162. The issue is the Virginia law that says the nominees of qualified parties always appear first on the general election ballot, ahead of independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. The U.S. District Court had acknowledged that being list first on the ballot does help candidates. But the Court said the U.S. Constitution permits states to favor the two major party nominees.
The Sarvis brief is due December 22, 2015. The state’s response is due January 25, 2016.
The order doesn’t really matter, but chronological and alphabetical are alternatives.
Many different details of different alternatives are possible and I can see a trend in plurality electipns
Many countries simply order the ballot in alphabetical surname order of the CANDIDATE.
In Australia the order is determined by
1. The drawing of lots for a second draw. The order for this draw is based on the order the nomination papers were received by the returning officer. So the party submiting their papers first draws first etc etc
2. The second draw – based on the numbers drawn in the first draw – actually determines the ballot order.
Order matters quite a lot! 1st position/listing has been shown by many studies to yield a fairly significant number of extra votes for whomever is listed first. California utilizes a drawing to come up with a “random” alphabet that results in every candidate having a chance to be listed first. No more of the Power of the “A”. Party listings should be equally as random.