The decision in the Eleventh Circuit is an unpublished per curiam opinion, but a reversal of the trial court–something of a rare combination of events, in my view. The summary of Catoosa County Republican Party v. Catoosa County Board of Elections:
Plaintiffs Catoosa County Republican Party (“Catoosa GOP”) and Joanna Hildreth, its chair (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), appeal the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights action, which alleged that the defendants violated their rights to (1) freedom of association, by forcing them to associate on the Republican primary ballot with certain political candidates they viewed as ideologically outside the local party; and (2) freedom of speech, by refusing to publish their proposed ballot questions.
The district court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiffs lacked standing for the first claim and that the second claim failed because it was based on government speech. After careful review, we hold that Plaintiffs have alleged a concrete injury to their associational right to exclude based on political beliefs, and that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an infringement of their private speech. We vacate and remand for further proceeding.
Note that this decision doesn’t say anything about the merits (which, reading the opinion, seem like a long shot). There’s some interesting discussion of the 1996 decision involving David Duke, and Part IV of the opinion examines what one might label “ballot speech.”
