On November 19, U.S. Disetrict Court Judge Timothy L. Brooks, an Obama appointee, enjoined some Arkansas restrictions on initiative petitioning. League of Women Voters of Arkansas v Jester, w.d., 5:25cv-5087. Here is the ruling.

The enjoined laws: (1) require that the ballot title of an initiative must be understood by anyone with only an eighth grade education (this means that the title must contain no words with more than two syllables); (2) require that circulators must be domiciled in Arkansas; (3) require that the names and addresses of every paid circulator must be given to the state before the circulators can work (and then anyone can see that list); (4) require that the circulator ask every signer to show the signer’s photo ID ; (5) require that the circulator read the symmary of the proposed initiative to anyone who is asked to sign; (6) require that the circulator tell everyone approached that “Petition fraud is a criminal offense”; (7) require that every paid circulator submit an affidavit after the work is done attesting that no laws were broken; (8) requiring that every paid circulator who turns in some petitions must take a 30-day hiatus from doing any more circulating.

The judge declined to enjoin several other provisions: (1) that the circulator be a resident of Arkansas (but a circulator is a “resident” if he or she simply has a hotel or motel address in the state while working); (2) the ban on paying per-signature; (3) that the petition contain a minimum number of signatures in each of 50 counties; (4) that the proponents pay the printing costs to run two notices of the initiative in twice in newspapers in every county; (5) that paid circulators must not ever have been convicted of trespass, shoplifting, or misdemeanor drug crimes.

The fact that certain laws were not enjoined does not mean that they won’t be held unconstitutional in this case in the future. Sometimes the plaintiffs lost on certain points because no plaintiff is in the case who is affected by the challenge regulation. For example, there were no plaintiffs who want to circulate in Arkansas but who have no residence in Arkansas; and there were no plaintiffs who were ever convicted of the crimes mentioned in the proceeding paragraph.

In 2024, Shiva Ayyadurai was an independent presidential candidate. He was not born in the U.S., but he filed several lawsuits arguing that he should still be allowed on the ballot. One of his cases was in Nebraska, where his petition had enough valid signatures but he still was barred from the ballot, based on the “natural born” provision in the U.S. Constitution for presidential qualifications.

The U.S. District Court in Nebraska had ruled on May 28, 2025, that the lawsuit is moot because Ayyadurai had not alleged he planned to run for president again in 2028. On November 13, 2025, the Eighth Circuit agreed. The Eight Circuit only wrote one sentence, saying the District Court had not erred. The three judges were Duane Benton, Bobby E. Shepherd, and David R. Stras.

Both courts were wrong about mootness. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over. That case was Moore v Ogilvie. In 1973, another U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Richardson v Ramirez, discussed the Moore case and noted that the plaintiff-candidates in Moore were not intending to run again.

The Nebraska Ayyadurai case was pro se, meaning that the plaintiffs did not have an attorney and wrote the pleadings themselves.

The Federal Election Commission has an updated list of 2026 congressional primary dates. See it here. Thanks to Tony Roza for the link.