On June 27, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge James L. Graham denied relief to Sarah Thomas Hoover, a Republican who was kept off the ballot in November 2022 even though she was her party’s nominee for Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Koover v LaRose, s.d., 2:22cv-3468.
She had run in the May 2022 Republican primary for a different judicial position. Later, the Common Pleas seat became vacant due to the resignation of the incumbent. In such special election situations, Ohio law lets parties choose a nominee without the need for a primary. The Republican Party chose her as its nominee, but because she had run for a different position earlier that year, the Board of Elections and the Secretary of State kept her off the ballot. Therefore the Democratic Party nominee was the only candidate listed on the November ballot.
Judge Graham said that the “sore loser” law is constitutional in general. He wrote that if the plaintiff had filed an “as applied” claim, she might have won the lawsuit. He said the justifications for the “sore loser” law are not peruasive in a sitution like this. He said, “The unusual situation where a primary election loser desires election to since-vacated office is unlikely to confuse voters or cause a substantial increase of work for county board of elections.” But apparently her briefs made a general attack on the sore loser law instead of an “as applied” challenge, so she lost the lawsuit. Here is the eight-page opinion.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/grumet-court-ruling-game-changer-131107343.html
TX E PET STORY
COURTS – ONE MORE BRAIN DEAD *DOCTRINE* —
***AS APPLIED*** JUNK.
ACTS OR NON-ACTIONS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL OR UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
LEGIS
EXEC
JUDIC
The plaintiffs filed suit after the election. If she had filed an as applied challenge it might have been dismissed as moot.
The plaintiff also did not file a sur reply.
The fundamental problem is Ohio’s early primary. If it had been a month or two before the general election there would have been less opportunity for a belated opening.
Waste of time and money. Make government and laws simple and local.
1. Sore loser laws cannot be constitutional if primaries are not government-funded/administered. The reason is that the government would not legally be allowed to consider who did or did not run in the primaries.
2. Sore losers are much less problematic under approval voting or ranked choice voting, because these voting systems reduce the spoiler effect.
3. “…the sore loser statute requires an individual to merely make a choice: whether to run in a primary election…”
Depending on filing fees and petition requirements for independents, this may be more than a “mere” choice!
4. “…Ohio’s legitimate interest in preventing potential conflicts among party members…”
No, the State does not have that interest. Absolutely not. Parties have that interest.
5. “…were a primary election loser permitted to run for a different office at the general election,
candidates could behave opportunistically to obtain any elected office rather than out of genuine
desire to hold a particular office…”
Or they could have interest in several positions. “Could” is not strong enough for a State interest.
6. “…[sore loser law] prevents county board of elections from being overwhelmed by many primary-election losers
jumping back into the election…”
Overwhelmed how? Administration issues are not excuses for limiting ballot access. Did he mean to say that the ballot would be crowded? What is the average number of candidates for a general ballot race?
There would be no sore losers or sore loser laws under my proposals. There might be sore winners, but I think they would still serve out of a sense of duty.