Filed Date: Feb. 22, 2016
Closed Date: July 29, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
Plaintiff, an individual, retired farmer, decided to run for President of the United States as a write-in candidate. He had run twice before as a write-in candidate for mayor and twice for governor so he was familiar with the process. He mailed his first declaration of write-in candidacy on January 1, 2016 and proceeded to mail to each state. Oklahoma, however, does not allow write-in candidates for President of the United States.
On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff explained filed a complaint in the Western District of Oklahoma against the states of Oklahoma, South Carolina, Colorado and Utah. He later petitioned to consolidate his case with his similar case in the state of Louisiana. In his complaint, he emphasized that these states make it difficult to run as a write-in candidate for President. For example, certain states require extra forms, don’t recognize write-in candidates at all, require applying in person, or require petition/signature drives collecting thousands of signatures to get on the ballot. Plaintiff claimed that those states that deny free access to their ballot as a write-in violate the Freedom of Speech and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff demanded an injunction so that the state of Oklahoma could not refuse to include him on the presidential ballot.
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court denied Plaintiff’s petition, finding Plaintiff had sufficient means to pay the filing fee. When Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee, the district court dismissed the suit without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed an objection to the dismissal and further explained his income. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Reconsideration and asked to pay a lower filing fee of $150. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider and directed him to pay a $400 filing fee. The court then dismissed the case without prejudice.
On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff appealed the denial of his in forma pauperis status. The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed the denial and also denied the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Summary Authors
Alicia Tschirhart (6/19/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5212867/parties/williams-v-oklahoma-state-of/
Russell, David Lynn (Oklahoma)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5212867/williams-v-oklahoma-state-of/
Last updated Aug. 20, 2025, 9:05 p.m.
State / Territory: Oklahoma
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 22, 2016
Closing Date: July 29, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individual seeking to be a write-in candidate for president of the United States
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
Case Details
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Order Duration: 2016 - 2016
Issues
Voting: