Previous County Gubernatorial Champion Sets Ballot Order—Is It Time for a Change?

Confusion about ballot order, such as why Kamala Harris appears ahead of Donald Trump or vice versa, has arisen among voters. This inquiry extends to the contests featuring Ruben Gallego versus Kari Lake. However, these occurrences are legally mandated rather than conspiratorial.

Debates linger over whether the candidate listed first enjoys a slight electoral edge. The state law governing ballot order stems from a 1979 statute, which ties the sequence to the outcomes of the previous gubernatorial race in each county.

In the 2022 election, Katie Hobbs outperformed Kari Lake in Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties. Consequently, Democratic candidates take precedence on this year’s ballot across these jurisdictions. Conversely, the remaining nine counties, where Lake performed better than Hobbs, list Republican names first, despite Lake losing the statewide election by a narrow margin of 17,117 votes.

The question of fairness looms large. In 2020, Democrats protested the situation when Republican candidates dominated the ballot order in eleven counties, including the densely populated Maricopa County. They responded by filing a federal lawsuit.

Representatives for the Democratic National Committee highlighted historical disparities, stating, “For the past 40 years, the result has been the systemic favoritism of Republicans on the vast majority of general election ballots,” argued Sarah Gonski.

Gonski contended that candidates listed first gain a significant electoral advantage. Referencing research by Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University, she noted that first-listed candidates typically enjoy an average advantage of 2.2 percentage points. This figure could, in certain scenarios, rise to 5.6 percentage points.

Nevertheless, U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa dismissed these claims. She pinpointed a crucial aspect of legal proceedings—that challengers must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome. In her ruling, she noted that the plaintiffs did not show how they were individually harmed by the ballot order.

Humetewa highlighted that any alleged injury stemmed from the effects on Democratic candidates rather than electoral harms suffered by the voters themselves. Furthermore, she maintained that voters retain the right to cast their votes regardless of ballot position.

The judge criticized the Democrats’ proposed solution, which sought to rotate the order between just the two major parties, excluding independent and third-party candidates from consideration. Humetewa’s ruling pointed to a lack of evidence substantiating the idea that ballot order disadvantages Democratic candidates, citing Kyrsten Sinema’s successful Senate campaign in 2018 as an example.

Recent elections have reinforced the judge’s conclusion. In 2022, Democratic candidates achieved victories not only for the governorship but also in other key statewide offices like secretary of state and attorney general. Since then, efforts to alter the ballot order law have stalled.