Filed Date: July 27, 2018
Closed Date: Dec. 4, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the constitutionality of (1) Arizona’s existing ballot access requirements requiring candidates to gather signatures in order to be listed on a ballot and (2) the Governor of Arizona’s failure to recognize that the then-current Arizona’s senator seat was vacant and declare a Special Election.
On July 27, 2018, a U.S. senate candidate in Arizona and Brittain for U.S. Senate (the principal campaign committee for the candidate) filed a complaint in the District Court of Arizona alleging that (1) Arizona’s existing ballot access requirements requiring candidates to gather signatures in order to be listed on a ballot violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because (a) the First Amendment protects the right to vote as a method of speech, (b) the Fourteenth Amendment protects the equality of that right, and (c) the existing ballot access requirements unconstitutionally denied the plaintiff’s access to the ballot because of the cost associated with gathering signatures. The complaint also alleges the Governor of Arizona’s failure to recognize that the then incumbent Arizona Senator’s seat was vacant due to the incumbent senator’s inability and or refusal to fulfill his responsibility as a U.S. senator, and declare a special election, violated the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and unconstitutionally denied him and all potential candidates’ ability to compete for the incumbent senator’s seat. On the same day, the plaintiff also applied for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, filed a Request by Non-Prisoner Pro Se Party for Electronic Noticing.
On August 2, 2018, the District Court for Arizona issued an order, (1) granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in district court without preparing fees or costs, (2) dismissing the plaintiff’s complaints as to violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment with leave to amend within 90 days because the complaints were too generalized and failed to state a claim, (3) dismissing the complaint as to violation of the Seventeenth Amendment with prejudice because the dispute was not justiciable and therefore the complaints was frivolous, and (4) ordering the plaintiff to find representation by a licensed attorney within 30 days because plaintiff was not a licensed attorney and could not appear in the court on behalf of his campaign committee.
On August 27, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the August 2, 2018 court order and extension of time to amend the complaint. On September 4, the District Court of Arizona issued an order, denying the motion for reconsideration and granting the motion for extension of time. On September 10, 2018, the plaintiff moved for a change of judge, alleging conflict of interest of the presiding judge, and moved to stay the case pending the motion for the change of judge. On September 26, 2018, the District Court of Arizona denied the motion for the change of judge and dismissed the remaining complaints for failure to timely file an amended complaint on the action.
On October 4, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the District Court of Arizona’s September 26, 2018 order (Docket No. 18-16932). On October 16, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred the case back to the District Court of Arizona for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. On October 18, 2018, the District Court of Arizona issued an order determining that any appeal of its decision is not taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status is revoked. On December 4, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute because the appellant failed to respond to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ order on October 23, 2018.
This case is closed.
Summary Authors
Sebastian Miao (4/8/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7539855/parties/brittain-v-ducey/
Snow, Grant Murray (Arizona)
Brittain, Craig R (Arizona)
Senate, Brittain For (Arizona)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7539855/brittain-v-ducey/
Last updated Aug. 9, 2025, 9:05 p.m.
State / Territory: Arizona
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 27, 2018
Closing Date: Dec. 4, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
an individual U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona in the 2018 Federal Election and the principal campaign committee for such candidate.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: 0
Order Duration: 2018 - 2018
Issues
General/Misc.:
Voting: