Arizona Green Party v. Michele Reagan, 838 F.3d 983

Background

The Arizona Green Party lost recognized status after failing to meet vote thresholds in 2010; it sought re-recognition in 2014 via petition under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-801, requiring 23,401 signatures filed 180 days before the primary (Feb. 27, 2014).
Arizona law sets a 180-day pre-primary filing deadline for new-party recognition to accommodate a set of interrelated administrative tasks (candidate deadlines, petition verification, ballot translation/printing, mailings, and testing).
The Green Party and a supporter sued the Arizona Secretary of State under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the 180-day deadline violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment associational/balLOT-access rights; the record was submitted on cross-motions for summary judgment with no plaintiff evidence.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, finding the Green Party failed to show a severe burden and that the deadline rationally served Arizona’s administrative interests.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit held the 2014-specific relief moot but found the issue capable of repetition; it applied the Anderson/Burdick balancing test and affirmed because the Green Party produced no factual evidence of a severe burden and Arizona showed important regulatory interests served by the deadline.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Arizona's 180-day pre-primary filing deadline for new-party recognition violates First and Fourteenth Amendment rights	Deadline unconstitutionally burdens minor parties by raising costs, hampering signature gathering when public attention is low, and making timely qualification unrealistic	Deadline is part of a timeline necessary for orderly elections (signature vetting, candidate requirements, ballot translation/printing, mailings); it serves important regulatory interests	Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to show a severe burden; on this record burden is at most de minimis and State interests justify the deadline
Whether the claim is moot because 2014 election passed	N/A — sought relief for 2014 ballot placement	2014-specific relief is moot but the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review	2014 relief moot; merits adjudicated because issue likely to recur
Standard of review and burden allocation in ballot-access challenge	N/A — argued the deadline unconstitutional as a matter of law	Court applies Anderson/Burdick balancing; plaintiff bears burden to prove severity with evidence	Plaintiff’s lack of evidence fatal; must show factual burdens to trigger heightened scrutiny
Whether precedent showing early deadlines can be unconstitutional controls absent case-specific evidence	Relied on analogies to cases striking early deadlines	Analogies insufficient without contextual evidence showing real burdens in Arizona scheme	Court rejects facial invalidation here; context and evidence required

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (balancing test for burdens on ballot access)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (sliding-scale scrutiny: severe burdens require compelling, narrowly tailored interests)
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (creation and development of new parties is protected; capable-of-repetition doctrine)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (ballot access fundamental to party formation)
Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (capable of repetition yet evading review principle)
Libertarian Party of Wash. v. Munro, 31 F.3d 759 (plaintiff bears factual burden to show severe burden; context-specific analysis)
Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (early deadlines can compound organizational burdens)
Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (historical evidence of ballot access can show severity of burden)
Ariz. Libertarian Party v. Reagan, 798 F.3d 723 ( Ninth Circuit discussion on evidence burden in ballot-access challenges)