In 2017 the Utah legislature passed a bill saying that independent candidates must have this label on the ballot: “This candidate is not affiliated with, or does not qualify to be listed on the ballot as affiliated with a political party.” In 2018 Marsha Holland was the only independent on the November ballot for any federal or state office in Utah. She filed a lawsuit against the law that required that label, after learning that many voters see that label and think it means she was “not qualified”. The case is Holland v Cox, U.S. District Court, 4:18cv-74.

Originally the lawsuit did not have an attorney associated with it, so it has been stalled, but she has now obtained attorneys and therefore the case can proceed. Here is a link to a news story that shows a picture of the ballot. She was a candidate for the legislature in a district that encompassed several counties in southern Utah. Not all counties obeyed the law. Some counties put the label on, but others did not.

In Cook v Gralike, 531 US 510 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Missouri law that forced some candidates for Congress and legislature to have a ballot label that said they refuse to support a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, said, “The adverse labels handicap candidates at the most crucial stage in the election process – the instant before the vote is cast…the labels surely place their targets at a political disadvantage to unmarked candidates.” Also, in 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that said each candidate’s race must be printed on the ballot. Anderson v Martin, 375 US 399.

Iowa Representative Mary Ann Hanusa (R-Council Bluffs) has introduced HF 335, which moves the petition deadline for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, from August to early June. The U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 US 780 (1983) suggests that the bill would be unconstitutional. Six lower courts have invalidated June petition deadlines.

The Ninth Circuit invalidated Arizona’s June 9 independent presidential deadline in Nader v Brewer, 531 F 3d 1028 (2011). A U.S. District Court invalidated South Dakota’s June 20 independent presidential deadline in Nader v Hazeltine, 110 F Supp 2d 1201 (2000). A U.S. District Court invalidated Kansas’ June 10 independent deadline in Merritt v Graves, unreported (the state conceded the deadline was too early, so there is no decision). A U.S. District Court enjoined the Nevada June 10 deadline for independent candidates and newly-qualifying parties in Fulani v Lau, unreported, in 1992. An Alaska trial court enjoined the June 1 deadline for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties in Sigler v McAlpine in 1988. And the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Idaho petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties in Populist Party v Evans, unreported, in 1984. That deadline was sometimes late May and sometimes early June, depending on the calendar. Thanks to Nick Sarwark for the news about the Iowa bill.

The Utah Republican Party has filed this reply brief, in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Utah Republican Party v Cox, 18-450. The next step will be for the court clerk to set a date for the court to consider whether to hear the case. It involves the extent to which a state can control the nominations procedure for a political party.