As already noted, on April 14 an Arizona state trial court put gubernatorial candidate Hugh Lytle on the primary ballot of the Arizona Independent Party, even though he had listed his business address, not his home address, on his primary petition. The individual who had brought the challenge has now appealed to the State Supreme Court. Here is the opening brief. Beckman v Lytle, cv26-0124.
The lawyers are Democratic Party election lawyers. Bo Dul was Katie Hobbs general counsel until about a year ago.
Hugh Lytle has filed his reply brief.
https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/ASC-CV260124%20-%204-27-2026%20-%20FILED%20-%20DEFENDANT-APPELLEE%20HUGH%20LYTLE'S%20ANSWERING%20BRIEF.pdf
The plaintiff has until April 30 to file a sur reply (if he did it has not been posted to the Supreme Court web site.)
Maricopa County has said their drop dead date for printing ballots is May 7. The court will conference on the case on May 5 (without oral arguments).
In the superior court case the plaintiff emphasized that Lytle lived in a Scottsdale Estate/Mansion and not in a post office box. The court in its decision noted that the addresses were in different legislative districts and zip codes, but that it didn’t matter. Apparently Lytle’s lawyer was asked whether it would matter if the addresses were in different counties, and the lawyer said that _might_ be more relevant. Now on appeal, the lawyers have dropped any mention of the number of bathrooms and emphasized that the two addresses are in different zip codes. This might matter if we elected mailmen.
States need not print the names of any candidates on the ballot only the offices to be filled for that election. Voters may write-in their choice of candidate for each office on the ballot. The names of persons voters write-in need not file any declaration prior to the election to have their names counted. If a person who has received votes does not wish to have their votes counted then AFTER votes are tabulated and before final certification those person can file a declaration of NON-CANDIDACY. Names of non-candidates remain a public record but discarded in determining the outcome.
In no case will a candidate have to pay a fee because some voter wrote in their name.
@DFR,
While it is not necessary to print any names on a ballot, it may have utility. How many Frank Robinson’s are there in Oklahoma? What if someone writes Frank Robertson? Your system was used in New England in the 18th and early 19th Century. They also required a majority for election. If no candidate received a majority, they would simply have a second trial, third trial, etc. In 1789, New Hampshire chose its presidential electors in the manner you have proposed. No person had a majority. Had the legislature not stepped in, New Hampshire would not have appointed any presidential electors.
Beckman also tried to knock a Green Party candidate off the ballot, using the same lawyers. County election officials reviewed the petitions and excluded around 1/3 of them (not exceptionally unusual for a campaign like this). Beckman’s lawyers then tried to challenge petitions from certain circulators based on them using false addresses or being felons. They sent private investigators to houses. In one case the wife of a circulator told the detective that the circulator did not live at the house, but the detective refused to provide identification or give his name. The judge decided the wife was not credible since she admitted lying to the detective, but also did not toss the circulator petitions since he had a lease and had paid the water bill. For others the detective had identified felons that possibly matched the circulator, but there were differences in the name such as a middle name or initial (e.g., if “D Frank” the same as “Frank” or “Frank D”?). The judge ruled that the evidence presented was not “clear and convincing”.
It is likely that the Democrats did not appeal this decision since the trial court had made a finding of fact. In the Lytle case there is no question that Lytle used a PO box. It will be interesting to see how the Arizona Supreme Court rules on the case brought by well known Democratic lawyers. Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republican governors.