Sore loser laws by state

Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
Ballot access for presidential candidates
Select a state below to learn more about ballot access requirements for candidates in that state.
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
Ballot access requirements for political parties in the United States
List of political parties in the United States
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
Note: This article is not intended to serve as a guide to running for public office. Individuals should contact their state election agencies for further information.

Forty-eight states bar candidates who sought, but failed, to secure the nomination of a political party from running as independents or as nominees for another party in the general election. These restrictions are sometimes called sore loser laws.

Sore loser laws can take various forms. Some states have explicit sore loser laws, while others have requirements that effectively prevent a candidate from running in a general election after losing a primary.

As of July 2025, two states—Connecticut and New York—did not have any form of a sore loser law. Iowa was the latest state to adopt such a law, which it enacted in 2021.

Whether these laws apply to presidential elections varies by state and has, in some cases, been the subject of litigation. Click here for more information about sore loser laws in presidential elections.

Background

Mississippi enacted the first sore loser law in 1906. The majority of states enacted sore loser laws between 1970 and 1995.

Sore loser laws by state

States have various type of sore loser laws. As of August 2025, 18 states have laws that explicitly prohibit a candidate who appeared on the primary ballot and was defeated from being placed on the general election ballot. Twenty-four states have laws that effectively ban sore loser candidates by prohibiting a candidate from filing in multiple elections or as members of multiple parties, or which prevent a candidate from simultaneously attempting to be placed on the ballot via party nomination and by petition. This is known as a cross-filing ban. Four states have deadlines that preclude a defeated primary candidate from appearing on the general election ballot. Maine has both a cross-filing ban and deadlines that preclude a defeated primary candidate from appear on the general election ballot. Vermont has both explicit and effective sore loser laws. New York and Connecticut do not have sore loser laws.

States with sore loser laws, 2025

State	Year first adopted	Type of sore loser law	Statute
Alabama	1977	Explicit	Ala. Code Section 17-9-3(b)
Alaska	1980	Effective (cross-filing ban)	AS 15.25.030(a)(14)
Arizona	1970	Effective (cross-filing ban)	A.R.S. 16-312
Arkansas	1955	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Ark. Code Ann. §7-7-204
California	1917	Effective (cross-filing ban)	CA Elec Code §8301
Colorado	1963	Explicit	Colo. Rev. Stat. § § 1-4-105
Delaware	1978	Effective (cross-filing ban)	15 Del. C. § 3002
Florida	1970	Effective (deadlines preclude a losing primary candidate from running in the general election)	Fla. Stat. §99.021
Georgia	1983	Effective (cross-filing ban)	O.C.G.A. §21-2-137
Hawaii	1967	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Hawaii Rev. Stat. §12-3(c)
Idaho	1976	Explicit	Idaho Code §34-704(4)
Illinois	1989	Explicit	Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 10, §5/10-3
Indiana	1967	Explicit	IC 3-8-1-5.5(a)
Iowa	2021	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Iowa Code §43.17
Kansas	1989	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Kan. Stat. Ann. §25-202(c)
Kentucky	1920	Explicit	KRS §118.345(1-2)
Louisiana	1978	Effective (cross-filing ban)	R.S. 18:1254(C))
Maine	1973	Effective (cross-filing ban and deadlines preclude a losing primary candidate from running in the general election)	Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 21-A §§ 351(2), 353, and 354(8-A)
Maryland	1957	Explicit	Md. Code, Election Law, §5-706(b)
Massachusetts	1976	Effective (deadlines preclude a losing primary candidate from running in the general election)	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 53 § 6
Michigan	1988	Explicit	Mich. Comp. Laws §168.695
Minnesota	1981	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Minn. Stat. §204B.04
Mississippi	1906	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-905
Missouri	1977	Effective (cross-filing ban)	§ 115.351, RSMo
Montana	1991	Effective (deadlines preclude a losing primary candidate from running in the general election)	Mont. Code Ann. §13-10-507
Nebraska	1994	Explicit	Neb. Rev. Stat. §32-605
Nevada	1963	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Nev. Rev. Stat. §293.200(6)
New Hampshire	1981	Effective (cross-filing ban)	N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §655.43(IV)
New Jersey	1915	Explicit	N.J.S. 19:13-8.1
New Mexico	1939	Explicit	N.M. Stat. Ann §1-8-45(B) N.M. Stat. Ann §1-8-19
North Carolina	1967	Explicit	N.C. Gen. Stat. §163‑122(b)
North Dakota	1975	Explicit	N.D.C.C. §16.1-13-06
Ohio	1929	Effective (cross-filing ban)	R.C. 3513.04
Oklahoma	1987	Effective (deadlines preclude a losing primary candidate from running in the general election)	Okla. Stat. §26-5-105
Oregon	1939	Explicit	ORS 249.048
Pennsylvania	1937	Effective (cross-filing ban)	25 P.S. § 2936
Rhode Island	1981	Effective (cross-filing ban)	R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-14-2.1
South Carolina	1950	Explicit	S.C. Code Ann. §7-11-10(A)
South Dakota	1977	Effective (cross-filing ban)	SDCL 12-7-5
Tennessee	1975	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-101(f)(2)
Texas	1977	Explicit	Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 162.015)
Utah	1994	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Utah Code Ann. §20A-9-501(2)
Vermont	2010	Explicit and effective	17 V.S.A. § 2403 17 V.S.A. § 2381
Virginia	1932	Explicit	Va. Code §24-2-520
Washington	2004	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Wash. Rev. Code §29A.24.311(3)(a)
West Virginia	1919	Effective (cross-filing ban)	W. Va. Code §3-5-23(g)
Wisconsin	1977	Effective (cross-filing ban)	Wis. Stat. § 8.15(7)
Wyoming	1973	Explicit	Wy. Stat. §22-5-215

Sore loser laws in presidential elections

A March 2023 study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy said that 28 states had sore loser laws that applied to presidential candidates. The authors said that federal courts have generally ruled that sore loser laws are constitutional. The authors argued that while some states had allowed defeated primary candidates to run in the general election in the past, those states were not necessarily required to do so at the time of the report, whether because state laws had changed, election officials who made previous decisions were no longer in office, or past candidates were allowed on the ballot as an oversight.

"A state’s past failure to enforce sore-loser restrictions against presidential candidates is not a reliable guide to future enforcement," the authors wrote.

In response to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article, Richard Winger, editor and publisher of Ballot Access News, wrote in March 2023 that no presidential candidate was removed from the ballot under a sore loser law prior to 2012.

"Before 2012, 34 states had printed "sore losers" on their presidential general election ballots, setting precedents that the laws don’t apply to presidential candidates," Winger wrote. He stated that there were legal and constitutional problems with applying most states' sore loser laws to presidential candidates.

Support and opposition

Support

Supporters of sore loser laws have said that they contribute to the integrity of the election process and prevent polarization and voter confusion.

In 2023, Wisconsin State Rep. John Macco (R) and Wisconsin Sen. Van Wanggaard (R) introduced legislation to apply Wisconsin's sore loser law to write-in candidates. The legislators said leaving "the door open for unnecessary confusion risks compromising the integrity of our elections and the confidence of the electorate."

"It’s like, ‘OK, you know what? You fight the fight. When it’s over, then it’s over, and you live to fight another day, but you don’t just keep slugging it out," Macco told Wisconsin Public Radio.

During a 2023 legislative debate over whether Vermont should establish an explicit sore loser law, State Sen. Ruth Hardy (D) said the proposal "maintains the integrity of the nomination and primary election process. It encourages transparency, and it prevents voter confusion.”

Opposition

Critics of sore loser laws say they contribute to political party polarization and fail to work in the public interest.

Matt Malcom, an independent candidate removed from the ballot under Wyoming's sore loser law, said in 2024 that "competition will force candidates to earn constituent votes by talking about the issues that matter.”

Eli Lehrer, president of R Street Institute, wrote in 2025 that sore loser laws "entrench party insiders and empower extreme activist groups." As of July 2025, the R Street Institute's website describes itself as "focused on solving complex public policy challenges through free markets and limited, effective government."

"Sore loser laws lock in bad primary decisions made by small groups of voters (only about 20 percent take part in primaries) and leave no room for the majority to overrule a vocal minority," Lehrer said. "Repealing them gives voters more choices in November, particularly when primaries produce unrepresentative nominees."

Noteworthy events

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals denies Don Blankenship's petition to run as Constitution Party candidate (2018)

Don Blankenship was a 2018 Republican candidate who sought election to the U.S. Senate from West Virginia. He came in third with 20% support in the Republican primary on May 8, 2018.

Following the primary, Blankenship accepted the Constitution Party's nomination for the seat. West Virginia law, however, prevents any candidate who participated in a primary for a recognized political party from running again as a third party or independent candidate. The state Attorney General's office retained outside counsel in June to represent the state in the event that Blankenship's candidacy was challenged.

On July 19, 2018, Blankenship collected enough signatures to file for the ballot as a Constitution Party candidate. On July 26, 2018, West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) rejected Blankenship's application to run as a Constitution Party candidate. Warner said Blankenship could not run because of the state's sore loser law.

On August 29, 2018, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals denied Blankenship's petition to run as a Constitution Party candidate. The ruling stated, "The West Virginia Secretary of State is ordered to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that Donald L. Blankenship does not appear on the 2018 General Election Ballot for the Office of United States Senator for the State of West Virginia."

Federal judge denies Gary Johnson's lawsuit to run as Libertarian Party candidate in Michigan (2012)

In April of 2011, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson announced a run for president as a Republican. In December 2011, Johnson announced he would drop out of the Republican primary and instead run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. Johnson ultimately appeared on the ballot in 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Johnson was unsuccessful in getting on the ballot in Michigan, however, where officials excluded Johnson under the state's sore loser law. Johnson and the Libertarian Party of Michigan sued on June 26, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing the state's sore loser law was unconstitutional and could not be applied to presidential candidates. Johnson said he missed the deadline to withdraw from Michigan's GOP primary by three minutes.

On September 7, 2012, U.S. District Judge Paul Borman ruled in favor of Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (R), rejecting the argument that Michigan's sore loser law does not apply to presidential candidates and saying that the law does not "impose severe burdens on Gary Johnson." Gary Johnson appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court ruling following the election. Michigan did count write-in votes in Gary Johnson's favor; he received 7,774 votes.

Explore election legislation with Ballotpedia

• 
  Try Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

  Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker provides daily updates on legislative activity related to election policy in all 50 states.
  
  Our election policy experts translate complex bill text into easy-to-understand summaries. And because it's from Ballotpedia, our legislation tracker is guaranteed to be neutral, unbiased, and nonpartisan.
  Search bills
• 
  Read Ballotpedia's State of Election Administration Legislation Reports

  Ballotpedia publishes regular analysis of election administration legislation, including three full reports per year, providing ongoing coverage of legislative activity affecting election policy in each state.
  
  These reports deliver insights into partisan priorities, dive deep into notable trends, and highlight activity in key states.
  Read the latest report
• 
  
  Subscribe to The Ballot Bulletin

  The Ballot Bulletin is a weekly email that delivers the latest updates on election policy.
  
  The newsletter tracks developments in election policy around the country, including legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news. Each email contains in-depth data from our Election Administration Legislation Tracker.
  Subscribe

See also

• Ballot Access
• Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
• Ballot access for presidential candidates
• Running for U.S. Congress and the presidency simultaneously
• Sore loser laws for presidential candidates, 2016