Whittaker v. Mallott

1 Citing case

  1. Chances v. Hobbs

    249 Ariz. 396 (Ariz. 2020)   Cited 22 times
    Setting forth the requirements for a special action

    Additionally, we examine a proponent's diligence in the context of the state's entire ballot access scheme, see Williams , 393 U.S. at 34, 89 S.Ct. 5, analyzing the impact that other laws, such as minimum signature requirements, limitations on the number of available signers, and the length of time to collect signatures, may have on a proponent's ability to qualify for the ballot. See Mandel v. Bradley , 432 U.S. 173, 178, 97 S.Ct. 2238, 53 L.Ed.2d 199 (1977) (examining a candidate's diligence in the context of state laws regarding the number of required signatures, limitations on the available pool of signers, and the time period to obtain signatures); Whittaker v. Mallott , 259 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1034 (D. Alaska 2017) (same); Green Party of Ga. v. Kemp , 106 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1322–23 (N.D. Ga. 2015) (same). ¶47 Arizona's ballot access scheme does not prevent a reasonably diligent initiative proponent from gaining access to the ballot.