The Democratic Party is suing Arizona over ballot-order of candidates in general elections. The Arizona law says the nominees of the party that placed first in the last gubernatorial election (in any particular county) are all listed on the top line. In 2018, the Republican Party nominee for Governor placed first in eleven of Arizona’s fifteen counties, so in 2020 the Republican Party nominees for all offices were listed first in eleven counties. The Democratic Party argues that the Constitution requires a system that gives the Democratic Party an equal chance to be listed first in all counties.

On May 27, the state filed its brief in Mecinas v Hobbs, 20-16301. The state argues on page 58 that “there is no objective or rational way for the courts to define partisan fairness in the context of ballot-order placement.” This is an absurd statement. Obviously if a state either rotates the order of candidates so that each candidate has an equal chance to be listed first in the same number of precincts, or if the state holds a random drawing to determine order, that is objectively fair.

The state also says that lawsuits like this can’t be adjudicated because there are “political”, which is odd, because for fifty years courts have been adjudicating lawsuits on the constitutionality of laws that give some candidates an advantage in ballot ordering.

The Democratic Party injures its own case because it argues that the relief it seeks should not be available to minor party or independent candidates.

The party’s reply brief is due June 18.

On June 3, U.S. District Court Judge Edmund A. Sargus denied relief to Ohio initiative proponents. Thompson v Governor of Ohio Michael DeWine, s.d., 2:20cv-2129. The case involved difficulty of completing initiative petitions (both statewide and local) during the health crisis. The judge said the case is not moot. He wrote, “The previous year illustrates the difficulty in predicting the high and low tides of a once-in-a-century pandemic. So long as a global pandemic is present, there is a ‘demonstrated possibility’ that Plaintiffs will be again subject to public health orders of the type they challenge in the Complaint.”

But, he said the Sixth Circuit has already ruled that the burden in 2020 for initiative proponents was only “intermediate” and that is not enough to declare the procedures, as applied in a pandemic, unconstitutional. Here is the opinion. Thanks to Mark Brown for the link.