Derek T. Muller, Ballot Access (forthcoming, Oxford Handbook of American Election Law):

Voters use ballots to choose their preferred candidates or to express support or opposition to ballot initiatives and referenda. There are many and diverse rules for how these people or items appear on the ballot in the first place—who can obtain “ballot access.” Once states began printing ballots in the late nineteenth century, they began to develop standards for which candidates, political parties, or ballot measures could appear on the ballot. States may require prospective candidates to circulate petitions and secure a number of signatures from voters to demonstrate support before their names could appear on the ballot. States set deadlines for candidates to circulate those petitions or to file for candidacy. Or states may limit the candidates who may appear on the general election ballot to those who meet a threshold level of votes in an earlier round of voting.

In the middle of the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court became increasing interested in establishing rules for federal courts to evaluate states’ ballot access rules. On the one hand, the state has an interest in preventing an overcrowded ballot and ensuring that only serious candidates appear on it. On the other hand, the state’s rules may be unduly restrictive, which may reduce voters’ choices or entrench one or both major political parties in office. The Court has developed a balancing test to determine whether the rules are too onerous or whether the state has adequately justified its interest. These fact-intensive balancing tests have left federal courts with the task of figuring out these context-specific questions.

“Cert petition of the week” highlighted at SCOTUSblog, summarizing the case Mazo v. Way.

Press Herald reports that the national organization of No Labels has been sent a cease and desist letter from the Secretary of State of Maine for misleading voters in their efforts to gain ballot access.

“’Over the past few months, municipal clerks have received reports from numerous Maine voters who did not realize that they had been enrolled in the No Labels Party,’ Bellows wrote. ‘These voters have provided similar accounts of how they came to be enrolled in the party: that they were approached by No Labels Party organizers in public places and asked to sign a “petition” to support the new party. These voters have further stated that No Labels organizers did not disclose – and the voters did not understand – that No Labels was asking them to change their party enrollment.'”

WaPo:

The Arizona Democratic Party will file a lawsuit Thursday against the state’s top election administrator and No Labels, seeking to reverse the moderate group’s recognition as a political party for the 2024 elections, according to Democratic officials.

The lawsuit, in state court in Phoenix, reflects growing concern in Democratic circles that a No Labels third-party ticket in 2024 will jeopardize the reelection hopes of President Biden and make it harder for Democrats to maintain control of the Senate.

The lawsuit claims that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who is a Democrat, made an error in accepting signature petitions for the No Labels Party, because accompanying affidavits from proposed electors were signed before all the petitions were gathered, in violation of state statute. As a result, the Arizona Democratic Party claims the affidavits purporting to verify the petitions should be considered false and the petitions invalid.

The lawsuit also argues that No Labels, which is organized as a social welfare nonprofit that is not required to disclose its donors, has failed to comply with the federal requirements of a political party, including donation limits and donor disclosure.

“No Labels is not following the rules for political party recognition, while attempting to be placed on the ballot alongside actual, functioning political parties who do,” said Morgan Dick, spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party. “Arizonans deserve better and voters deserve to know who is behind this shadowy organization and what potentially nefarious agenda they are pushing.”

Ryan Clancy, the chief strategist for No Labels, dismissed the lawsuit as a political move.

“This undemocratic and unscrupulous lawsuit is a disgrace,” he said in a statement. “Next time you hear this crowd talking about protecting democracy, remember what they are really doing is protecting their turf.”

Jason Torchinsky, Steve Roberts, Dennis Polio, and Andrew Pardue write in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:

In recent months, Donald Trump and his supporters have stoked rumors that he may run as
a third-party candidate for president in 2024 if he fails to win the Republican nomination. These
rumors, sometimes bordering on outright threats, have reinvigorated a discussion of sore-loser
laws—restrictions that states place on candidates running in the general election after losing a
primary election. This discussion has centered on two questions: 1) whether sore-loser laws apply to candidates for president, and, if so; 2) whether a Trump third-party campaign can win a majority of electoral college votes if sore-loser laws prevent him from accessing the ballot.

This article explores the hypothetical scenario where Trump (or any other Presidential candidate) seeks to run in the general election after a losing bid for a major-party nomination.
Although nearly every state now has some kind of sore-loser restriction, their potential
application to presidential candidates has not been extensively studied. The Authors have determined that sore-loser laws in 28 states do indeed apply to presidential candidates and that if a candidate fails to win the Republican nomination, sore-loser laws will prevent access to the general election ballot in those states. This includes 20 states that Trump won in either 2016 or 2020 which total 225 electoral votes—more than 83% of the electoral votes needed for a majority.

As a result, it would be nearly impossible for Trump to win the general election as a third-party
candidate given the limited number of Republican-leaning or “tossup” states where his name
would appear on the ballot, which together amount to an insufficient number of electoral votes
for a general election victory. Accordingly, any third-party presidential campaign mounted by
Trump or any other defeated Republican could only function as a spoiler campaign—splitting
the vote that would otherwise coalesce behind the Republican nominee—thereby causing that
nominee to lose the general election.

State of Politics:

At the height of its power, the Independence Party in New York had registered more than 400,000 voters in the state. For years, political observers, elected officials and candidates suspected many of those voters were duped into enrolling in a party when they meant to register as “blanks” — no party affiliation at all.

A law signed this week by Gov. Kathy Hochul is meant to put an end to that.

The new law will restrict the use of “independence” or “independent” from the name of a ballot line in order to reduce the chances of confusing voters into registering for a party when they mean to be true registered independent voters.

A large enrollment for the Independence Party in New York enabled it to leverage real sway with candidates who sought their ballot line in general elections. Candidates in New York can run on multiple ballot lines.

“A party known for preying on independently-minded New York voters to inflate its rolls should have no place in our democratic system,” said state Sen. James Skoufis, a Democrat from the Hudson Valley who sponsored the measure with Assemblyman Jeff Dinowitz of the Bronx.