30 F.4th 890
9th Cir.2022Background
- Arizona's Ballot Order Statute (A.R.S. § 16-502) directs counties to list candidates on general-election ballots grouped by party, with the party that received the most gubernatorial votes in the county placed first.
- Plaintiffs (three voters plus the DNC, DSCC, and Priorities USA) sued Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, alleging the statute gives a partisan advantage (via the primacy/position-bias effect) that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court held an evidentiary preliminary-injunction hearing but dismissed the complaint with prejudice on jurisdictional grounds: lack of standing and a nonjusticiable political question; it did not reach the merits.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Ninth Circuit considered the pleading-stage record and briefing, treating the standing challenge as facial (no conversion to factual Rule 12(b)(1) motion).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed: it held the DNC has competitive standing, the political-question doctrine does not bar review, the Secretary is a proper Ex parte Young defendant, and the complaint states a claim sufficient to survive dismissal; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (injury-in-fact) | DNC: competitive standing — statute harms party's electoral prospects by advantaging rival party via primacy effect | Hobbs: no concrete, particularized injury; harm is generalized or speculative | DNC has competitive standing; competitive disadvantage in an illegally structured electoral environment is a concrete, particularized injury |
| Traceability / Redressability / Proper defendant | Plaintiffs: Secretary promulgates Election Procedures Manual and oversees ballot rules; injunction against her would change ballot ordering | Hobbs: counties print ballots independently; statute and §16-503 do not mention Secretary, so relief against Secretary is not traceable or redressable | Traceability and redressability satisfied: Secretary promulgates mandatory Manual and has authority over ballot rules; Ex parte Young applies; Secretary is proper defendant |
| Political-question doctrine / Justiciability | Plaintiffs: claims are justiciable and reviewable under Anderson–Burdick with manageable standards | Hobbs: Rucho shows partisan-election questions are nonjusticiable; deciding what is a "fair" ballot order is political | Political-question doctrine does not bar the case; Rucho is limited to partisan gerrymandering; Anderson–Burdick supplies manageable standards |
| Merits standard / burdens | Plaintiffs: statute imposes constitutional burden via primacy effect (First and Fourteenth Amendments) | Hobbs: any burden is negligible and justified by interest in manageable, uniform ballots | Court did not decide merits; held plaintiffs pleaded a cognizable claim and Anderson–Burdick applies; factual development required to assess burden and interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury-in-fact, traceability, redressability)
- Owen v. Mulligan, 640 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir.) (party officials have competitive standing to sue over election advantages)
- Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir.) (reaffirmed competitive-standing principle for ongoing practices that affect future elections)
- Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (addressed traceability/redressability limits in competitive-standing context)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions in that specific context)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (framework for assessing burdens on voting and associational rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (articulates sliding-scale test with Anderson for election regulation burdens)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (states claim exception for prospective injunctive relief against state officers)
- Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir.) (analyzed defendant connection and local-election-official discretion in ballot-order challenges)