BLF Election Law Victories Cited in Ballot Access News

October 6th, 2025

The Bernhoft Law Firm supports, defends, and fights for election ballot access for individuals and political party candidates running for political office, without regard to the “politics” of those individuals or political parties. The Firm and its principals believe that restrictive ballot access laws only serve to suppress political speech, and that Americans from across the political spectrum increasingly support more choices for parties and candidates. One important way to achieve this goal is to “open up” ballots to offer more choices for American voters, because voting is a quintessential act of political speech that should be encouraged, not restricted. 

Industry-leading Ballot Access News recently published its October 2025 edition, and cited to two of Bernhoft Law’s seminal election law/ballot access case victories: 

Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) 

Nader v. Brewer is recognized precedent, cited favorably (over 100 times) in most every federal appeals circuit in the country. There, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that barring out-of-state petition circulators from circulating petitions for ballot access within Arizona violated the First Amendment rights to free speech, association, participation, and advocacy in the political process. 

Daien v. Ysursa, 711 F.Supp.2d 1215 (D. Idaho 2010) 

Daien v. Ysursa followed Nader v. Brewer and struck down an Idaho ballot access restriction barring out-of-state persons from circulating ballot-access petitions on behalf of candidates for office. 

In addition to these two seminal cases cited in Ballot Access News, Bernhoft Law has also won other important ballot access cases over the years: 

Libertarian Party of L.A. County v. Bowen, 709 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2013) 

Bernhoft Law represented the Los Angeles County Libertarian Party challenging a California statute that barred petition circulators who resided outside the political district that the candidate lived in. After the district court dismissed the case as premature, the Firm appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. There, the Court held the case was, in fact, ripe for adjudication, and reversed and remanded back to the federal trial court. Then after remand, the California Legislature passed a law removing the residency restriction, another victory for Free Speech and voting rights. 

Frami v. Ponto, 255 F.Supp.2d 962 (W.D. Wis 20o3.) 

In another hard-fought litigation contest, Bernhoft Law represented several petition circulators and candidates for political office to challenge restrictive ballot access laws. After full briefing, the federal district court issued an order declaring the Wisconsin statutes barring out-of-district and out-of-state petition circulators unconstitutional. 

Nader v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 Wisc. LEXIS 1165 (2004) 

In a highly charged political environment, Bernhoft Law represented presidential candidate Ralph Nader before the State of Wisconsin Elections Board, which upheld Ralph Nader’s nomination petition to be on Wisconsin’s presidential election ballot. The Democrat Party appealed to the Dane County Circuit Court, however, which overruled the Elections Board and barred Ralph Nader from the ballot. 

With time until the presidential general election approaching quickly – and therefore insufficient time to appeal the trial court’s decision through the ordinary appeals process –  Bernhoft Law filed an unusual original jurisdiction petition to commence an original action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court publici juris. The Supreme Court accepted the petition and ordered expedited briefing and oral argument. 

Attorney Bernhoft argued the petition personally before the Supreme Court, and the same day as oral argument the Court issued an order restoring Nader to the presidential general election ballot.