This news story says the Arizona Independent Party will appeal the decision that it can’t change its name. The ruling yesterday ignored all the precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court about freedom of association. It ignored all the history of parties that have changed their names in the past. Even the two major parties have changed their names in the past, but none of that got into the court’s seven-page decision.

It is the essence of freedom that individuals and groups decide for themselves about their name. Can one imagine a government telling a church that it can’t change its name?

The tentative candidate list issued by the California Secretary of State reveals that there are eight Assembly districts in which only one person filed to be on the June 2 primary ballot. Therefore, in those eight districts, a candidate who files as a declared write-in candidate has a chance to appear on the November ballot. All the write-in candidate needs to do is out-poll any other primary write-in candidate.

The eight Assembly districts are: 4,8,17,22,32,54,61 and 63.

On March 25, an Arizona state trial court judge ruled that political parties have no right to change their names. If they want to change their names, they must follow the procedures for a new party, including a petition. Arizona Clean Elections Commission v Fontes, Maricopa County Superior Court, cv 2025-064149. Here is the seven-page opinion.

The opinion makes no mention of the many other states that have allowed parties to change their names. The opinion does not discuss the problem that if a party wants to change its name and submits a petition as though it were a new organization, the old party would still remain on the ballot as long as enough people were registered into the old party (two-thirds of 1%).

The case came about because No Labels Party decided to change its name to the Arizona Independent Party. If the Arizona Independent Party were to petition as a new party, it would face the handicap that its old essence would still be on the ballot, so the party under its new name would be forced to compete against its former self, under the old name.

The decision says nothing about whether a party can have the word “independent” in its name. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who had sued the Secretary of State over his decision to allow the name change, had argued that even if parties can change their name, the name change “Arizona Independent” could not be allowed because use of the word “independent” would cause confusion.

Presumably No Labels is still on the ballot and its registrants will be converted back to No Labels registrants. Filing for the party’s primary had already closed (except for write-in declarations of candidacy) and the party has quite a few candidates for federal and state office. UPDATE: this story says the party will appeal, but that the Secretary of State will not appeal.