expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again.” Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (per curiam). There is no serious dispute that the first requirement is met here; our focus, therefore, is on whether there is a reasonable expectation that Van Wie and Wright will be prohibited from participating in a future primary election. A tension has arisen in cases applying the second prong of the Weinstein test in the elections context. Some recent election cases from the Supreme Court and this Court have steadfastly required that the same complaining party have a reasonable expectation that they will face the same action again. See Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 288, 112 S.Ct. 698, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist
holding continuing controversy not moot holding that although the 1972 election had long since passed the case was not moot because the statute under review would apply to other candidates in the future holding that appeal was not moot despite the fact that the election had passed because there would be every reason to expect the same parties to generate a similar future controversy emphasis added holding that plaintiffs claims were not moot although the election was over because the same issues would affect minorparty candidacies in the future but failing to address whether fulani herself would be affected holding that election case was not moot after election because there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining parties would be subject to that same action in the future