Arizona Green Party v. Reagan, No. 14-15976 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter the Party failed to meet the deadline for recognition as an official political party on the 2014 Arizona ballot, it challenges the constitutionality of Arizona’s filing deadline for new party petitions, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Party claims that by requiring "new" parties to file recognition petitions 180 days before the primary, Arizona unconstitutionally burdens those parties’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court concluded that, without evidence of the specific obstacles to ballot access that the deadline imposes, the Party did not establish that its rights are severely burdened. Moreover, the court concluded that, at best, any burden is de minimus. Finally, after the court balanced the impact of the 180-day filing deadline on the Party's rights against Arizona's interests - administering orderly elections - in maintaining that deadline, the court concluded that the Party has not demonstrated an unconstitutional interference with ballot access.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Arizona Secretary of State in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Arizona Green Party and a supporter challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s filing deadline for new party petitions. The Green Party asserted that by requiring new parties to file recognition petitions 180 days before the primary, Arizona unconstitutionally burdened those parties’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Noting that the Green Party did not submit any supporting evidence with its motion for summary judgment, the panel held that the Green Party did not meet its burden of showing that Arizona’s 180-day petition-filing deadline significantly burdened its constitutional rights. The panel further held that the Secretary demonstrated that the restriction served Arizona’s important interest in administering orderly elections.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.