CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/14/2023 1

Minor-Party State Faction 

Opposing the National Nominee 

Browne v. Bayless 

(Robert C. Broomfield, D. Ariz. 2:00-cv-1774) 

Rival factions of Arizona’s Libertarian Party named different presidential nominees for the 2000 election, and the national party’s 

nominee was not the one selected to represent the party on the Arizona ballot. After unsuccessful state-court litigation, the national 

nominee filed an action in federal court, which the district judge 

dismissed one week later. The action was barred by (1) the RookerFeldman doctrine, which states that among federal courts only the 

Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court proceedings; (2) Younger abstention, which avoids undue interference in 

state functions; (3) the plaintiffs’ failure to name indispensable parties; and (4) laches. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

matters for state courts; laches; party procedures. 

The Libertarian Party’s national nominee for President filed a federal complaint in the District of Arizona on Friday, September 15, 2000, challenging 

his exclusion from the general-election ballot in Arizona.1 Also named as 

plaintiffs were a voter who wished to serve as an Arizona elector for the candidate, another Arizona voter, and a Virginia voter who wanted to protect 

the value of her vote by ensuring that the candidate appeared on all states’ 

ballots.2 The candidate was to be listed as an independent in North Dakota 

and as the Libertarian candidate in all other states and the District of Columbia.3

Rival factions of Arizona’s Libertarian Party selected different presidential nominees, and the rival nominee was selected for the Arizona ballot instead of the plaintiff.4

 The plaintiff could have run as an independent, but 

presidential elector candidacy papers were due on June 14—for either a party 

or an independent candidate—and the plaintiff did not become a national 

Libertarian nominee until July 2.5

The plaintiff candidate filed an action in Arizona’s superior court on August 18 and received an adverse judgment on September 8, including a ruling 

1. Docket Sheet, Browne v. Bayless, No. 2:00-cv-1774 (D. Ariz. Sept. 15, 2000) [hereinafter Browne Docket Sheet] (D.E. 1); Opinion at 1–2, 7, id. (Sept. 22, 2000), D.E. 12 [hereinafter Browne Opinion]. 

2. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 2. 

3. Id. at 3 & n.2; see Libertarian Split Costs Candidate Ballot Spot, Ariz. Republic, Sept. 

26, 2000, at B1 [hereinafter Libertarian Split]. 

4. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 3 n.3; see Howard Fischer, Arizona Ballot Will Omit 

Libertarians’ Candidate, Ariz. Daily Star, Sept. 24, 2000, at 5 (“The national party . . . chose 

last year to back the splinter faction.”). 

5. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 3–4. 
Minor-Party State Faction Opposing the National Nominee 

2 Federal Judicial Center 9/14/2023 

that the elector candidacy deadline was not unconstitutional.6 The candidate 

did not file an appeal, and Arizona’s supreme court denied discretionary review on September 12.7

The federal court assigned its case to Judge Robert C. Broomfield,8 who 

held a telephonic scheduling hearing with the parties and set the case for arguments on September 20.9

 On September 22, Judge Broomfield granted the 

defendants’ motion to dismiss the case10 for several reasons: (1) the action 

was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that among federal 

courts only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court 

proceedings;11 (2) “[p]ursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, courts 

may decline to exercise jurisdiction to avoid undue interference in state functions”;12 (3) the plaintiffs failed to name county boards of supervisors as indispensable defendants under Arizona law;13 and (4) laches.14

6. Id. at 5–6. 

7. Id. at 6. 

8. Browne Docket Sheet, supra note 1. 

Judge Broomfield died on July 10, 2014. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory 

of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

9. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 1. 

Judge Broomfield issued an order to show cause on the morning of September 19. Order, 

Browne v. Bayless, No. 2:00-cv-1774 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2000), D.E. 5. 

10. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 32; see Fischer, supra note 4; Libertarian Split, supra

note 3. 

11. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 8–15; see D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 

462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); see also Martin A. Schwartz, 

Section 1983 Litigation 21–24 (Federal Judicial Center 3d ed. 2014). 

12. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 15; see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 

13. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 21–22; see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351.C. 

14. Browne Opinion, supra note 1, at 24–25 (“Where laches unquestionably comes into 

play is with Plaintiffs’ decision to file a lawsuit first in the Superior Court, then wait an entire 

month before launching the present federal action. . . . The court finds that the filing of 

Plaintiffs’ federal complaint in mid-September reflects a lack of necessary diligence.”).