U.S. District Court Keeps Former President Donald Trump on the Republican Arizona Presidential Primary Ballot

Posted on by December 5, 2023

On December 5, U.S. District Court Judge Doug Reyes, an Obama appointee, issued an opinion in Castro v Fontes, 2:23cv-1865. The opinion rejects keeping former President Donald Trump off the Arizona Republican presidential primary. The opinion says that John Anthony Castro, the Republican presidential candidate who filed this lawsuit and many similar lawsuits in other states, does not have standing. He acknowledges that Castro appears to have qualified for the Arizona Republican presidential primary ballot, but cites the small amount of campaign spending in the Castro campaign and says Castro has not shown that he is really in competition with Trump for votes.

The opinion is twelve pages and has more precedents listed than some of the other decisions in Trump ballot access cases.

Comments

U.S. District Court Keeps Former President Donald Trump on the Republican Arizona Presidential Primary Ballot — 20 Comments

  2. Three cheers for President Trump and best wishes for his upcoming second term.

  5. WHO HAS *STANDING* ???

    HOW MUCH SPENDING IS NEEDED NOT TO BE *SMALL* ???

    ONE MORE HACK JUDGE OR WHAT ???
    —
    ELECT ALL JUDGES- PART OF USA P-A-T

  8. Is it just me? I’m a bit worried about a ruling on a plaintiff that acknowledges his/her may have some merit and standing but nonetheless is ruled against because of long odds at the issue at hand.
    Not the best of analogies: Assume a state lottery has no lesser prizes, just an $800milion grand-prize A lottery commission blatantly denies me a chance to buy a ticket because I’m black or I’m a frequent critic of the lottery.
    I sue.
    And at some point in the trial the judge says that since the odds of me winning are so great he’s going to dismiss the suit.

  10. Ken b., I agree with you. Claiming a candidate has no legal standing because of a perception of their low popularity is not a sound basis.

  14. “Ken b., I agree with you. Claiming a candidate has no legal standing because of a perception of their low popularity is not a sound basis.”

    I disagree. The question in this case is not ‘does Castro have standing to access the ballot?’ The question is ‘does Castro have standing to deny someone else access to the ballot?’

    The courts are making this distinction in their opinions: they are preserving a low threshold to access the ballot, and setting a high threshold to deny someone else access.

    Moreover, these rulings have less to do with the courts analyzing polls or fundraising and more to do with the courts analyzing Castro’s own statements. For instance, in the Arizona lawsuit, Castro entered into evidence a list of media articles and demanded the court take notice of them. The court obliged Castro and the first article it took notice of was an AP story in which Castro announces he’s only running to block Trump, he has no intention of actually trying to be elected President. The court cited that to establish that Castro’s injury was a manufactured injury.

    In cases like this the Plaintiff must at least plausibly pretend to be actually running for President. You can’t go right out and announce it’s all theater. These are rank amateur errors.

  15. What this ruling seems to say (and I imagine other Castro rulings are similar) is that Castro’s *only* purpose in filing for office is to generate standing so he can challenge Trump’s candidacy.

    The ruling says “…to be clear, the Court’s conclusion is not based on political prognostication or a perception that Castro is unlikely to win. Instead, it is based on a finding that Castro is not truly running for office. His campaign’s raison d’être is to contrive standing in order to pursue litigation to keep Trump off the ballot.”

  17. to Fantek & DiBianca ~~

    What I originally feared is that (my limited perception of) this ruling bolsters journalists from publishing info on minor candidates, and that debate sponsors (like Commission on Pres Debates or academic institutions) denying a legal candidate’s participation because he/she has such little chance.

    Anyway, thanxs guys for setting me straight with court-ruling details.

  18. In other news, Castro just re-filed a new New Hampshire lawsuit that is all but a copy/paste version of the one that got thrown out the other month.

    Someone should start taking bets on how much longer before a court imposes a pre-filing order on this guy.

  19. Mark and Arthur: You made some very good points and I commend you for reading Judge Reyes’ opinion so thoroughly.

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.