Arizona Seems Unlikely to Appeal No Labels Decision

Posted on by January 22, 2024

Arizona lost a lawsuit to No Labels a week ago, and still hasn’t filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  This strongly suggests the state won’t appeal.  The issue was whether No Labels could bar candidates from filing in its primary for congress and partisan state office.

If U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema, an independent, decides to run for re-election, she could have easily obtained a spot on the general election ballot by filing for the No Labels primary.  But given the court decision, that route is blocked.

Comments

Arizona Seems Unlikely to Appeal No Labels Decision — 24 Comments

  5. I AM A SUPPORTER OF THE RETARD PARTY AND JONES SANTOS. I GAVE ARIZONA A SINGLE FORM PETITION TO GET THE PARTY ON THE BALLOT BUT HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING

  6. That is disappointing to me personally as one of the five No Labels Party members who filed statements of intent to run in the primary. As I said before, the real problem seems to me that every registered voter can vote in the August primary except those approximately 22,000 (we haven’t gotten the January 2 count yet, but the county-level figures show the registration is that high) No Labels Party voters: Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Greens can vote in their party primaries, and voters not registered with any party can request a party primary ballot of any party.

    It would seem to me that No Labels Party members might have an equal protection argument to file a separate lawsuit. As Judge Tuchi noted in his opinion, no members of the party were involved in the Arizona No Labels Party v. Fontes suit.

    Judge Tuchi also didn’t seem to realize, when he said that Mr. Draper and I were unaware or in defiance of the party’s lawsuits that, by his own timeline in the opinion, the bylaws of the state committee were not created until August 11, 2023, five days after I filed and more than 20 days after Mr. Draper filed his statement of intent.

    As a recent Axios Phoenix article by Jeremy Duda, “Arizona history: Green Party went to court in 2010 to block “sham” candidates from ballot,” noted, in 2010 the Arizona Green Party sued the Arizona secretary of state and several candidates who’d won Green Party primaries for different offices to get them off the ballot, saying they were “sham” Green Party members. Federal District Court Judge David Campbell took a different attitude than did Judge Tuchi:

    “Judge David Campbell rejected the Green Party’s arguments that same year, ruling the so-called sham candidates didn’t violate its constitutional right to free association.

    “Political parties frequently deal with candidates who don’t fully share their views and platforms, the judge said.

    “‘They retain their right to vote, their right to speak, their right to campaign and organize. Although the statute arguably burdens their associational rights by requiring them to tolerate candidates they do not support, that burden … is not uncommon in political parties,” Campbell wrote.”

    Duda cited a ruling by Superior Court Judge David Fink a few days later in September 2010 in a state court suit by the Democratic Party challenging the Green Pary primary winners:

    “Fink had ‘no hesitation’ in concluding the candidates were recruited in bad faith for the purpose of damaging Democrats’ election prospects, but he upheld their right to run because they’d gotten on the ballot legally and seemed to have a legitimate desire to run.”

    (I was one of the 2010 Green Party candidates who was sued, and perhaps my experience in these cases led me to recklessly assume that there would be similar outcome in the No Labels case.)

    Duda concluded his Axios Phoenix article: “The Green Party didn’t appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit, so the case created no precedent for the ongoing controversy surrounding No Labels. Fontes plans to appeal the No Labels ruling.” Guess not, given your post.

    I am still the No Labels Party candidate in Alaska’s primary in August 2024 even though I am a supporter of President Biden and am using my campaign, as I told the Arizona Republic, to oppose the No Labels leaders and expose them as people trying to spoil the election so that Donald Trump can return to power.

    And at least in one way, I am the only true “No Labels” candidate:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56k4OVFD1yg&t=219s

  13. I BELIEVE THE JONES SANTOS PLATFORM IS TO MAKE ARIZONA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE THE SAME STATE.

  15. NEW HAMPSHIRE MASSACHUSETTS AND ARIZONA WILL BE THE SAME STATE UNDER A JONES SANTOS ADMINISTRATION

  16. THE PLATFORM OF BAN TROLL MORONS IS TO BE CANNON FODDER FOR TRUMP’S EFFORT TO DESTROY THE USA AND STATE CONSTS — TO HAVE A NEW AGE ROMAN EMPIRE – OF KILLER/ENSLAVER LAWLESS TYRANT EMPEROR DONALD I AND HIS JACKASS MORON OFFSPRING.
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  17. AZ MUST BE MIXING UP TRUMP AND BIDEN AGAIN. AZ IS THE ONLY BAN TROLL MORON.

  18. I told Richard Grayson this was going to happen in comments here months ago. I think he told me no way no how no chance. I said something like hide and watch. Well here it is.

  21. @Richard Grayson
    You make a good point with the references to legal precedent in Arizona. Each state makes its own rules, to some extent. My state has closed primaries – independents are locked out. But, it just feels a little yucky to make voters go to the government to receive a ballot for a specific party qualifier (“primary”) in the first place.

  24. Because Lincoln and his party hated the Constitution as originally designed well over a century and a half ago.

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.