On November 23, the Third Circuit upheld a 1944 New Jersey law that says if a candidate on a primary ballot mentions an individual or a group in his or her ballot label, the candidate must get permission from that individual or group. Mazo v New Jersey Secretary of State, 21-2630. Here is the decision.
New Jersey is the only state that lets primary candidates choose a ballot label (except that California lets all candidates have their occupation on the ballot). The label can be up to six words. But if the label mentions a group, that group must give permission to the candidate. Similarly, if the label mentions an individual, the named individual must give permission.
The decision is by Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, an Obama appointee. It is also signed by Judge Jane Roth, a Bush Sr. appointee; and Judge Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee. The decision is in conflict with a First Circuit decision, Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, 638 F 3d 6 (2011), which says that if a general election candidate wants a ballot label that mentions the name of an unqualified party, he or she may have that label, regardless of the wishes of that political party.
In theory, if it stands and became valid nationally, can’t this be used by political parties to in jungle primaries only allow certain individuals to use their ballot label, i.e. stop 10 people from listing the same party preference?
No. They just allowed the NJ law to stand, not mandate that other states pass such laws.
The Third Circuit only has 3 states: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. So this decision is only controlling in those three states. It is very unlikely that any of those three states would ever pass a bill eliminating party nominees. None of those three states has the initiative process, and state legislators in those three states are quite respectful of major political parties. The Pennsylvania legislature has repeatedly refused to pass a bill letting independent candidates vote in partisan primaries.
This would be a good law to pass in every state, because when political parties have no control over who uses their label on the ballot the labels become meaningless. Imagine corporate brands not being able to control who uses their name and logo, or for example the Catholic church having no say in which churches call themselves Catholic. If the labels become meaningless, or are not printed on the ballot at all, this gives an even greater advantage than currently to the biggest parties and their most well known, well connected and well financed candidates. They have the resources to rise above the din of unknown names and meaningless ballot labels, whereas their less well known, less well financed and less well connected competitors do not.