Democratic Party Drops its Arizona Lawsuit Concerning Order of Candidates on Ballot

On May 2, the National Democratic Party dropped its lawsuit against the order of candidates on Arizona general election ballots, and on June 2, the court approved the withdrawal. Mecinas v Hobbs, 2:19cv-5547.

Democrats had won an important procedural victory in this case on April 8, 2022. The Ninth Circuit had ruled the party does have standing to challenge the law, which says that in most parts of the state, Republicans are listed first on the general election ballot. The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the U.S. District Court, which had said the party doesn’t have standing.

This is the only one of the Democratic Party’s six 2020 lawsuits on ballot order that seemed likely to win, but apparently the Democratic Party decided the case wasn’t worth the expense of a trial. The party lost lawsuits in Texas, Florida, Georgia, West Virginia, and Minnesota. The decisions in Texas, Florida, and Georgia had said ballot order is a “political” question that the courts can’t adjudicate.

If anyone challenges the Arizona law on ballot order in the future, the case will begin with a clean slate. The Democratic Arizona case was dropped “without prejudice.”


Comments

Democratic Party Drops its Arizona Lawsuit Concerning Order of Candidates on Ballot — 8 Comments

  1. NOOOO such thing as a *political* question.

    Every govt official action / omission is legal / illegal.

    Brain dead courts and law skooools since 1215 Magna Charta.

  2. Why haven’t the Republicans sued in Delaware? The law specifically requires Democrats to always be listed first. It actually says the Democratic Party, by name, is always to be listed first. That seems like there would be a stronger case for overturning the law than just suing because the incumbent governor’s party is listed first, or whatever.

  3. Jim –

    DE – blatant subversion of NOOOO Title of Nobility Cl 1-10-1 and 14-1 Amdt EP Cl.

  4. In West Virginia, the Democratic Party lost 2-1 in the Fourth Circuit. The majority said the law is not discriminatory and it imposes only a “modest” burden. Whenever judges want to uphold a law, they say it imposes a “modest” burden. It’s completely arbitrary whether something gets described as “modest”.

  5. Brain dead hack judges love using void for vagueness adjectives and adverbs in their junk opinions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.