On July 1, U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore, a Clinton appointee, enjoined a Houston, Texas requirement that city initiatives can only be circulated by registered voters in Houston. Pool v City of Houston, s.d., 4:19cv-2236. Here is the 20-page order.

The city argued that it doesn’t enforce the requirement, and also that the particular initiative being circulated by the plaintiffs would itself be unconstitutional (the initiative concerns campaign finance). The city also argued that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the case is not ripe. Judge Gilmore wrote that these arguments are unconvincing. Thanks to Trent Pool for this news.

Stateline, a nonpartisan service of Pew, comments on issues in state government. On July 1, it ran this comprehensive article about ballot access legal changes during 2019 so far.

On July 1, the Eighth Circuit issued an eight-page opinion in Moore v Thurston, 18-1382. This is the case filed in 2014 against the Arkansas March deadline for non-presidential candidates. After the case won, the legislature changed the deadline to May 1. But, oddly, they still appealed to the Eighth Circuit, hoping to get a ruling that the U.S. District Court decision should be erased.

The Eighth Circuit declined to erase the U.S. District Court decision. Although the case became moot once the legislature improved the deadline, and although decisions in moot cases are sometimes vacated, in this case the U.S. District Court decision will not be vacated. The Eighth Circuit wrote, “Independent candidates and voters have repeatedly – and successfully – challenged Arkansas’s ballot-access requirements. We thus conclude that the public interest is best served by a substantial body of judicial precedents limiting the burden that those requirements may place on candidates’ and voters’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.”