Skip to main content

State power over presidential ballots

Martinez-Ferrate v. Utah

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Martinez-Ferrate and other candidates seeking to serve as presidential electors challenge their removal from Utah’s general-election ballot after state officials found their pledged presidential candidate constitutionally ineligible.
Who it affects
The candidates did not get Supreme Court review of their challenge, and the Court did not resolve it.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Gian Martinez-Ferrate, et al., Petitioners v. Utah, et al.
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

Their petition asks whether the state could make that eligibility decision and whether the removal gives them a legal right to sue.

The dispute concerns whether Utah could assess a presidential nominee’s eligibility while deciding which elector candidates appear on its ballot.

Question presented

1. Whether Presidential Elector Candidates suffer a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to establish Article III standing when state officials remove them from the general election ballot after determining that their Pledged Presidential Candidate is constitutionally ineligible. 2. Whether a State may deny ballot access to qualified Presidential Elector Candidates by adjudicating the constitutional eligibility of their Pledged Presidential Candidate where state law identifies the Presidential Electors, not the presidential nominee as the relevant ballot candidates. 3. Whether the decision below conflicts with this Court's precedents recognizing that exclusion from the ballot and burdens on political participation constitute judicially cognizable injuries under Article III. 4. Whether allowing individual States to determine presidential eligibility in a manner that excludes otherwise qualified Presidential Elector Candidates creates the very state-by-state inconsistency that this Court cautioned against in Trump v. Anderson.

Documents

2

Docket activity

8
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

Show 3 more
  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Brief added: Petition

    Jul 21, 2026 · Court records

  • Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions

    May 13, 2026 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis