Dan Whitfield v. John Thurston, 3 F.4th 1045

Arkansas requires independent U.S. Senate candidates to file a political-practices pledge, affidavit of eligibility, notice of candidacy, and a nominating petition by May 1 with signatures equal to 3% of qualified electors or 10,000 signatures (whichever is less), and petition circulation is limited to the 90 days before filing.
Dan Whitfield ran as an Independent for U.S. Senate in 2020, failed to gather the required signatures, and sued to challenge those ballot-access provisions.
After a bench trial, the district court upheld the challenged provisions. Whitfield appealed.
The 2020 general election occurred while the appeal was pending, and Whitfield did not indicate he would run again as an Independent.
The Eighth Circuit ordered supplemental briefing on mootness and ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot because Whitfield no longer had a live interest and did not show a reasonable expectation of being subject to the laws again.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Whitfield's appeal is moot	Not moot: the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception applies to election challenges	Moot: Whitfield's independent candidacy ended and he has not shown intent to be subject to the laws again	Appeal dismissed as moot
Whether the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception applies without a same-complaining-party showing in election cases	Election cases are different; exception applies broadly to future candidates/voters	Circuit and Supreme Court precedent require a reasonable expectation the same party will face the action again	Exception requires same-complaining-party showing; Whitfield failed to meet it
Whether the first prong (too short to litigate) is met	Whitfield assumed it is met for election timing	Court assumed the first prong could be met but did not decide it was dispositive	Court treated first prong as satisfied for argument’s sake but dismissed for failure on second prong

SD Voice v. Noem, 987 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir. 2021) (Article III mootness/case-or-controversy principles)
Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, 697 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2012) (standing can lapse and render a case moot)
McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2004) (mootness where plaintiff’s interest ended)
Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1975) (tests for capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review)
Arkansas AFL-CIO v. F.C.C., 11 F.3d 1430 (8th Cir. 1993) (plurality requiring reasonable expectation the same party will face the action again)
Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541 (8th Cir. 1995) (applying Arkansas AFL-CIO approach)
F.E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (requiring reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that same party will face recurrence)
Davis v. F.E.C., 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (applied same-complaining-party requirement in election context)
Abdurrahman v. Dayton, 903 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2018) (burden on party invoking exception to demonstrate it applies)