Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners Daniel Lavey and Anna Richter Taylor sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 16 (2012), arguing that the ballot title did not satisfy the requirements of state election law. Initiative Petition 16 would amend several statutory provisions regrading the use of studded tires on public roads. Currently state law makes it a class C traffic violation for a person to drive a vehicle equipped with stuffed tires on any Oregon highway. Initiative Petition 16 would delete two exemptions and amend the code so that no road authority would be allowed to issue a variance permit. Petitioners contended that the ballot title was deficient in a number of different respects pertaining to the caption, the "yes" vote result statement, the "no" vote result statement and the summary. Upon review, the Supreme Court rejected most of Petitioners' arguments without discussion, but wrote only to address one issue raised by petitioners that affected the caption and the "yes" vote result statement. The Court found that the caption and "yes" statement did not adequately identify the subject of the proposed initiative because it did not accurately state the change in the law that will take place if the initiative became law. The Court referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General's office for modification. View "Lavey v. Kroger" on Justia Law

Petitioners Gail Rasmussen and Bethanne Darby sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 14 (2012), arguing that the ballot title did not satisfy the requirements of state election law. If enacted, Initiative Petition 14 would amend the Oregon Constitution to prohibit the state from imposing any inheritance tax, estate tax or tax on the transfer of property "where the transfer is the result of the death of a person." Petitioners contended that the ballot title was deficient in a number of different respects pertaining to the caption and the "no" vote result statement and summary. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Attorney General with regard to the caption: "the Attorney General's identification of the subject matter of the measure as amending the constitution to prohibit estate taxes is accurate and substantially complies" with state law. However, with regard to the "no" statement, the Court found a vague and indefinite reference that did not adequately inform voters which estates currently subject to estate or inheritance taxes would continue to be subject to such taxes if the initiative was rejected. The Court referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General's office for modification. View "Rasmussen v. Kroger" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, visually or manually impaired Florida citizens who were registered to vote in Duval County, Florida and were represented by the American Association of People with Disabilities, filed a putative class action against defendants, alleging that defendants violated federal statutory and state constitutional provisions by failing to provide handicapped-accessible voting machines to visually or manually impaired Florida voters after the 2000 general election. The court vacated its prior opinion and in its revised opinion, held that the district court erroneously granted plaintiffs' requested declaratory judgment and injunction against purported violations of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The opinion, however, based that outcome exclusively on the ground that voting machines were not "facilities" under 28 C.F.R. 35.151(b). View "Amer. Assoc.of People with Disabilities, et al. v. Harris, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners Albert Ugas and Daniel Fishburn filed a recall petition against Respondent Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist, charging him with misfeasance and/or malfeasance and breach of his oath of office. Petitioners alleged that Mr. Lindquist failed to investigate alleged corruption and falsification of records by a former county assessor-treasurer. Additionally, Petitioners contended that Mr. Lindquist obstructed justice by deterring law enforcement from investigating the assessor-treasurer. The lower court dismissed Petitioners' affidavit of prejudice and held that the recall petition was legally and factually insufficient. The court awarded Mr. Lindquist $50,000 in attorney fees for Petitioners' intentionally filing a frivolous recall petition in bad faith. Petitioners argued on appeal that their recall petition was legally and factually sufficient and that they should not have been ordered to pay attorney fees. Upon review of the petition and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "In re Recall of Lindquist" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from defendant's convictions for making two statements regarding Barack Obama on an online message board two weeks before the presidential election. At issue was whether the district court properly convicted defendant under 18 U.S.C. 879(a)(3), which made it a felony to threaten to kill or do bodily harm to a major presidential candidate. The court held that, taking the two statements at issue in the context of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, the court held that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had the subjective intent to threaten a presidential candidate. For the same reasons, given any reasonable construction of the words in defendant's postings, these statements did not constitute a "true threat," and were therefore protected speech under the First Amendment. Accordingly, defendant's convictions were reversed. View "United States v. Bagdasarian" on Justia Law

The citizens of Kinston, North Carolina, approved a referendum switching city elections from partisan to nonpartisan. Because Kinston was located in a jurisdiction covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act), 42 U.S.C. 1973(c)(a), the city council had no authority to implement the referendum until precleared by federal authorities, and preclearance had not occurred. A candidate for public office claiming a state-law entitlement to run under the suspended nonpartisan system, together with other plaintiffs, filed suit seeking to enjoin the Attorney General from enforcing section 5 against Kinston. Count one of plaintiffs' complaint contended that section 5, as reauthorized in 2006, exceeded Congress' Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement powers. Count two contended that amendments made to section 5 in 2006 erected a facially unconstitutional racial-preference scheme. The court held that one of the plaintiffs, the candidate for public office, had both standing and a cause of action to pursue count one and therefore, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider the merits of that claim. The court held that, because plaintiffs' standing with respect to count two raised complex questions unaddressed by the district court and the parties' briefs, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of that claim and remanded for further consideration. View "Laroque, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute over the results of a town council election in Atlantic Beach, South Carolina, held on November 3, 2009. Carolyn Cole and Windy Price (Appellants) appealed the circuit court order that affirmed the Town of Atlantic Beach Municipal Election Commission's (MEC) decision to de-certify and order a new election for two Atlantic Beach Town Councilmember positions. On November 3, 2009, the Town of Atlantic Beach held an election for the two positions on town council. After the polls closed, there were 39 contested ballots. The MEC held a challenged ballot hearing, after which, 28 of the challenged ballots were accepted. These accepted ballots included those of Price and Cole. The MEC conducted two protest hearings. In pertinent part, the MEC heard testimony concerning the allegations raised in several letters of protest that contested the election of Appellants on the grounds that Appellants failed to meet the residency requirements to run as candidates. At the close of the second hearing, a majority of the Commissioners voted to grant petitions for a new election. On that same day, Appellants appealed the MEC's decision to the circuit court. The MEC did not issue a written order until January 29, 2010. That order summarily found Appellants did not meet the residency requirements of running for public office. The MEC de-certified the election results and ordered a new election. The circuit court judge heard the appeal in May 2010, and issued an order that same day affirming the decision of the MEC. Upon review, the issues before the Supreme Court pertained to whether there was sufficient evidence in the MECs record to support its decision to decertify and order new elections. Appellants argued that the Supreme Court should vacate the MEC's decision to de-certify and order a new election because the MEC failed to comply with the requirements of the South Carolina Code that delineates the procedure for contesting results of a municipal election. The Court believed that the Town's "complete disregard of the provisions of section the statute was perpetuated by a conscious decision to ignore the will of the voters, and this delay ultimately undermined the legislative purpose behind requiring the expeditious handling of election disputes." Therefore, the Court agreed with Appellants and vacated the decision of the MEC. Accordingly, the MEC's initial certification of the town council election declaring Appellants Cole and Price as winners was restored. View "Cole v. Town of Atlantic Beach Election Commission" on Justia Law

In 2010, plaintiff's application for ballot placement as an independent candidate for Congress was denied due to his failure to comply with the state’s requirement that each petition signature be witnessed by a district resident. The district court dismissed a challenge to the requirement, relying in part on a 1985 Fourth Circuit case. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that its rationale in the earlier case has been superseded by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The district court should determine whether the in-district witness requirement is justified by a state's desire to gauge the depth of a candidate's support. Plaintiff's supporters lack standing, but the plaintiff's challenge is not moot. There is a reasonable expectation that the challenged provisions will be applied against the plaintiff again during future election cycles. View "Lux v. Judd" on Justia Law

Voters sued the Secretary of State arguing that her certification of the eSlate, a paperless direct recording electronic machine, violated the Election Code and the Texas Constitution. At issue was whether voters had standing to pursue complaints about an electronic voting machine that did not produce a contemporaneous paper record of each vote. The court held that because it concluded that most of the voters allegations involved generalized grievances about the lawfulness of government acts, and because their remaining claims failed on their merits, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment dismissing the case. View "Andrade v. NAACP, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Marshall Home brought an action in superior court to disqualify Jonathan Rothschild as a Democratic candidate for mayor of the city of Tuscon, arguing that Rothschild was ineligible to serve as mayor because he was a member of the state bar of Arizona and, thus, was also automatically a member of the judiciary. Therefore, Home argued that Rothschild should be disqualified from non-judicial office by the separation of powers doctrine in the Arizona Constitution. The superior court dismissed Home's complaint, finding Home's argument "spurious." On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding there is no incompatibility between the private practice of law and serving as the mayor of a municipality. The Court also found Home's appeal frivolous and awarded defendants attorney fees and costs. View "Home v. Rothschild" on Justia Law