Republicans may hang on to the top spot on Florida ballots, a federal appeals court has decided — a significant boost for the GOP in the biggest purple state, and also perhaps the biggest defeat yet for Democrats counting on winning a wave of lawsuits that boost their prospects this fall.
The ruling Wednesday was mainly on technical grounds but nonetheless nullified a lower court decision. Last November a federal trial judge declared unconstitutional a Florida law awarding the most prominent place on every ballot to the governor's party. That design feature guarantees an artificial boost in the vote of candidates from the benefiting party.
Such laws are a feature of a system assuring the major parties can box out worthy insurgent and independent candidates, democracy reformers lament. The parties listed second view such measures as arbitrary and discriminatory, arguments the Democrats have made in challenging first-on-the-page laws the past year not only in Florida but also in Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
The case in Florida, where the occupant of the governor's office means the GOP has been listed first on every ballot since 1999, has proceeded furthest. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs, several Democratic voters and campaign organizations, lacked the standing to sue and sued the wrong people.
Judge William Pryor also said the Democrats had not proved they were being harmed by the seven-decade-old law.
That was the opposite of what District Judge Mark Walker of Tallahassee had said in November, when he ruled the law impermissibly "allows a state to put its thumb on the scale and award an electoral advantage to the party in power." His decision pointed to experts who testified that listing GOP candidates first gave them as much as a 5-point advantage in Florida's elections.
Earlier this month Walker had ordered the state to come up with a more equitable ballot architecture by the end of May, accusing Florida officials of slow-walking their planning in hope of winning their appeal.
The attorney leading the lawsuit campaign by the Democratic National Committee and the party's congressional campaign arms, Marc Elias, signaled that an appeal would be filed soon.
"Arguing that Democrats are not harmed by an illegal and unwarranted 5 percent Republican advantage in every single election in the state is wrong, inconsistent with running a fair election, and we are considering all of our options in this case," he said. "We can assure you that we will take whatever steps are necessary to protect Florida voters this November."
Absent a quickly successful appeal, however, President Trump's name will be first on the November ballots in all 67 counties. He is counting on the state's 29 electoral votes, but former Vice President Joe Biden has led in recent polling. The state has been a tossup every year since 1996 and has narrowly gone for the winner every time. The 2016 margin was just 113,00 votes out of 9.1 million cast.
That margin of 1.2 points is much less than the 5 percent cited in the case.
The other ballot primacy lawsuits remain in the trial courts. Georgia and Arizona are looking at highly competitive Senate races this fall, and Biden appears to have a shot at carrying their combined 27 electoral votes. Texas is more of a long shot for him and the Democratic Senate challenger but is not entirely out of reach.
Republicans have been listed first on the ballot in every election in Arizona for almost a decade, in Georgia for more than a decade and in Texas for two decades.
Georgia is also in the jurisdiction of the 11th Circuit and so that claim's future could be limited by Wednesday's decision.
Political operatives pay so much attention to the vote-getting power of topping the ballot that they have several nicknames for it: The "primacy effect," the "windfall vote" and the "donkey vote."
The high partisan stakes in the Florida case were reflected in the 11th Circuit's decision. Pryor, a nominee of President George W. Bush, was joined in most of his opinion by Judge Robert Luck, a nominee of President Trump. Dissenting on several issues was Judge Jill Pryor, put on the court by President Barack Obama.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."