This Los Angeles Times story about the upcoming USC gubernatorial debate makes it clear that the issue remains controversial. Instead of relying strictly on polls, the debate organizers also rewarded candidates on the rate at which they have received donations, rather than the amount of the donations themselves.
On March 20, Samuel Ronan filed a federal ballot access lawsuit to be on the Ohio Republican primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. House, 15th district. The day before, the Secretary of State of Ohio had kept him off the ballot. Because the ballots had already been printed with Ronan’s name on them, Ronan only needed to win a court order to prevent election officials from sending a notice to voters that he is not qualified and that ballots for him would not be counted. Ronan v LaRose, s.d., 2:26cv-343.
Late in the day on March 20, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Morrison, a Trump appointee, ordered the Secretary of State not to send out any notices to voters, or notices at early voting polling places, saying Ronan is not a qualified candidate.
The local election board had tied, with two Republicans voting to disqualify Ronan and two Democrats voting to keep him on the ballot. The Secretary of State, a Republican, then broke the tie and ruled against Ronan. Ronan had been challenged on the grounds that he is not really a bona fide Republican. But the Ohio election law has no provision to disqualify candidates from primary ballots on those grounds. It is common in Ohio for independent candidates to be challenged on the basis that they aren’t really independent. But there is no analogous provision in the law to keep people off a primary ballot on grounds that they aren’t sincere party members.
The case is not over, and Ronan’s relief is only temporary, but it seems likely that he will prevail, given the judge’s speedy action to keep his candidacy alive. Here is the Complaint that explains the interesting details of how and why Ronan had been disqualified.
On March 20, the plaintiff in the North Carolina case over whether voters can take a picture of their own voted ballot filed a notice of appeal. Earlier the U.S. District Court had upheld the ban. Hogarth v Bell, e.d., 5:24cv-481. The Fourth Circuit number hasn’t been assigned yet.
As reported earlier, two months ago the Alaska Division of Elections dissolved the Alaskan Independence Party because its current leaders asked the state to do that. But some of the party’s former leaders don’t agree with the dissolution of the party. However, instead of fighting to revive the AIP in court, they will attempt to create a new party, the Alaskan Party. See this story.
On March 18, an Arizona state trial court held arguments in Arizona Clean Elections Commission v Fontes, cv2025-064149. According to this story, the hearing did not go well for the party.
