Judge to rule whether No Labels can keep candidates off ballot

Listen to this article

A federal judge is considering whether to allow No Labels Arizona to solely run a presidential candidate in 2024 and bar any other interested parties from running under the party’s banner.  

No Labels Arizona, a flagship of a national effort to run a “unity” presidential ballot in 2024, contend they cannot be made to run federal or state candidates they want “nothing to do with,” under an Arizona law.  

But attorneys for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes claim, as a state political party, No Labels cannot prevent their own members from running.  

No Labels secured party status in the state in April and have since garnered close to 19,000 registered voters.  

After two candidates filed statements of interests to run for Corporation Commission and the U.S. Senate under the party, No Labels filed a lawsuit seeking to strike the names from the ballot.  

Since filing the suit, three more candidates have filed to run as No Labels candidates in U.S. and state representative races. 

No Labels Arizona seeks a declaration that Fontes violated Arizona law and the First and Fourteenth Amendments in keeping the names on the ballot for the primary and ask the court to prohibit Fontes from “forcing No Labels Arizona to associate with and nominate a candidate for Corporation Commissioner and U.S. Senator or for any other office.”  

At a brief bench trial today, Andrew Pappas, an attorney for No Labels, argued Arizona law makes it so parties must “intend” or “desire” to run candidates in the primary election and cannot be made to do so.  

But district judge John Tuchi said Pappas was “not necessarily giving (the law) a fair read,” and noted the statute was plural and included a provision allowing parties to nominate candidates for all offices. 

Pappas said the statute was “conditional,” and therefore must account for circumstances where a party does not want to make nominations.  

But in the state’s interpretation, Kara Karlson, attorney for Fontes, said that once a party makes one nomination, they open the door to allow any candidates to run. 

“We are not saying that that language means they have to field people on every single race, it just means they are entitled to representation, and they are entitled to run,” she said.  

Karlson added the party included an intent to participate in the primary on their initial signature petitions.  

But Pappas said, “Candidates have been on notice for a long time that No Labels doesn’t intend to run candidates.” 

Tuchi asked the parties about a lack of a statutory scheme for a party to opt-out or notify the Secretary of State if they did not intend to run candidates for certain offices.  

He acknowledged No Labels had been communicating with Fontes through letters to try and address their sole presidential focus but said it “clearly didn’t work here.”  

“Some people didn’t get the memo,” Tuchi said.  

Pappas said a specific scheme was not necessary and the law should be construed consistent with the party’s constitutional rights, noting the requirement runs counter to the party’s bylaws and trample on the party’s associational rights.  

Karlson argued No Labels should be precluded because there is “no mechanism under state law in which a party could elect to run this way.”  

Tuchi took the matter under advisement.