Gould v. Grubb

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it is unconstitutional for a ballot to list candidates in alphabetical order because it “reserves advantageous ballot positions for candidates whose names begin with letters occurring early in the alphabet”
• recognizing that state law that awards top ballot order to a particular class of candidates “inevitably” burdens the rights of voters whose candidates are outside the class
• holding that it is unconstitutional for a ballot to list candidates in alphabetical order because it “reserves advantageous ballot positions for candidates whose names begin with letters occurring early in the alphabet”
• holding that it is unconstitutional for a ballot to list candidates in alphabetical order because it “reserves advantageous ballot positions for candidates whose names begin with letters occurring early in the alphabet”
• holding that it is unconstitutional for a ballot to list candidates in alphabetical order because it “reserves advantageous ballot positions for candidates whose names begin with letters occurring early in the alphabet”
• holding that incumbent-first and alphabetical listing violated equal protection principles

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).