Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

In the 1990s, Appellee Stephen Rambler mailed letters in an attempt to extort money from approximately thirty individuals by threatening to reveal certain sexually explicit correspondence if they did not pay him. Based on this conduct, Appellee was charged with violating federal law by mailing "threatening communications." Nearly ten years later, in November 2005, Appellee was elected mayor of Wrightsville, York County. He assumed office in January 2006. Two months later, the Commonwealth filed a complaint in quo warranto seeking to remove Appellee from office pursuant to Article II, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Commonwealth alleged that the federal offense constituted an "infamous crime" in Pennsylvania, and requested an order declaring Appellee unqualified for his mayoral office. The common pleas court ultimately issued an opinion and order in favor of the Commonwealth, removing Appellee from office, and disqualifying him from holding any office of trust or profit in Pennsylvania. Appellee appealed, claiming that his federal extortion conviction did not qualify as an infamous crime because his conviction only carried a maximum sentence of two years which is comparable to a misdemeanor sentence in state court. The Superior Court reversed. The Supreme Court found in its review that "Appellee sought to reap dishonest gain… This type of behavior is, quite obviously, 'inconsistent with commonly accepted principles of honesty and decency,' and is, moreover, akin to 'swindling, cheating, and other crimes of a kindred nature.'" The Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Rambler" on Justia Law

Petitioners Gail Rasmussen and Bethanne Darby sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 18 (2012). If approved by the voters, Initiative Petition 18 would enact a prohibition on the imposition of any state or local estate tax, inheritance tax, tax on property transferred in connection with a person's death, or tax on the transfer of property between family members. The proposed measure would supersede current statutes that imposed those taxes, and it would exclude from its prohibition certain statutes that imposed fees relating to attendant transactions following a person's death. Petitioners argued that the certified "yes" and "no" vote result statements did not comply with the applicable statutory standards. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that indeed the certified statements were inaccurate, and the Court "invited" the Attorney General to address and correct the problems with the narrative. View "Rasmussen v. Kroger" on Justia Law

Petitioners Beaufort County and several officials from county boards of elections and registration sought a declaration from the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction that the General Assembly has neither authorized the State Election Commission or the County Election Commissions to conduct a Presidential Preference Primary in 2012, nor mandated that Petitioners bear the financial burden of conducting the primary. The South Carolina Republican Party scheduled a Presidential Preference Primary for January 21, 2012. In the 2011-2012 Appropriations Act, the General Assembly provided that filing fees received from candidates to run in primary elections may be used by the State Election Commission to conduct the 2012 Presidential Preference Primary elections. In addition, the State Election Commission is authorized to use funds originally appropriated for ballot security to conduct the Presidential Preference Primary elections and the statewide primaries and runoffs. Petitioners contended the General Assembly did not authorize the State Election Commission or the County Election Commissions to conduct a Presidential Preference Primary in 2012 or any election cycle thereafter. In addition, Petitioners argued the amount set forth in the Appropriations Act were insufficient to cover the actual costs to the counties of conducting the 2012 primary. Because the Court was "firmly persuaded" that the General Assembly, through passage of Provisos 79.6 and 79.12 for fiscal year 2011-2012, intended to suspend the temporal limitation in S.C. Code Ann. 17-11-20(B)(2) (Supp. 2010), the Court entered judgment for Respondents the State Election Commission. View "Beaufort County v. SC Election Commission" on Justia Law

In a run-off election, Steve Jernigan was elected major of the City of Lepanto. A month later, the State filed a petition for writ of quo warranto, seeking to prevent the usurpation of the office of mayor of the City on the grounds that Jernigan did not reside within the City as required by Ark. Code Ann. 14-42-201(c)(1). After a hearing, the circuit court denied the State's petition. The State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that Jernigan did not reside within the City limits. View "State v. Jernigan" on Justia Law

This case arose from litigation challenging the validity, under the United States Constitution, of the initiative measure (Proposition 8) that added a section to the California Constitution providing that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" (Cal. Const., art. I, section 7.5). The Ninth Circuit posed the following procedural issue to the court, "[w]hether under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refused to do so." In response, the court concluded that when the public officials who ordinarily defended a challenged state law or appealed a judgment invalidating the law declined to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Election Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure were authorized to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative. View "Perry v. Brown" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was how sealed absentee ballots that were rejected and never counted during the 2008 general election were classified under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). Several television stations brought an action under the MGDPA seeking access to the ballots, alleging that they were public government data under the MGDPA. The district court granted summary judgment to the stations. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Minn. Stat. 13.37(2) unambiguously provided that sealed absentee ballots were nonpublic or private data under the MGDPA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain language of section 13.37(2), when read in conformity when the MGDPA and statutes governing absentee voting, unambiguously classified unopened absentee ballots not counted in the 2008 general election as not public government data; and (2) because the absentee ballots were not public data, the stations were not entitled under the MGDPA to inspect and copy the disputed ballots. View "KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County" on Justia Law

Citizens for a Better Arizona (CBA) filed a recall petition with Secretary of State Ken Bennett seeking to recall State Senator Russell Pearce. After determining that the petition contained more signatures than required, Secretary Bennett filed the petition with the Governor's office. Governor Janice Brewer then ordered a special election for the recall of State Senator Russell Pearce. Six days later, Franklin Ross, a District 18 elector, filed suit to enjoin the recall election, alleging that the recall petition failed to meet constitutional and statutory requirements. The superior court refused to enjoin the election. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that CBA's petition for the recall of Senator Pearce substantially complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements, including the requirements that the circulators of the petition subscribe to an oath that the signatures are genuine and that the petition contain a general statement of the grounds for recall. View "Ross v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a North Carolina registered lobbyist, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the North Carolina State Board of elections to challenge the constitutionality of North Carolina's "Campaign Contributions Prohibition," N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-278.13C, which prohibited any registered lobbyist from contributing to the campaign of any candidate for the North Carolina General Assembly or the Council of State. Applying the "closely drawn" standard of scrutiny that the court concluded was applicable to such contribution restrictions, the court held that the statute was constitutional, both facially and as applied to plaintiff, as a valid exercise of North Carolina's legislative prerogative to address potential corruption and the appearance of corruption in the State. View "Preston v. Leake, et al." on Justia Law

John Fletcher, John McConnon, and Tom Leader (collectively, "Fletcher") appealed an order of the Chancery Court of Hancock County incorporating the City of Diamondhead, Mississippi. Fletcher argued that the chancery court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for incorporation because it did not include two-thirds of the signatures of the qualified electors residing in the proposed incorporation area, and notice was improper. Fletcher also argued that objectors to the incorporation were denied the right of cross-examination at the hearing, and that the second chancellor's failure to order a new trial was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court found that the petition for incorporation met the jurisdictional requirements, because notice was proper and the petitioners presented substantial evidence that the petition contained two-thirds of the signatures of the qualified electors residing in the proposed incorporation area. Furthermore, the Court found that the chancellor did not deny the objectors' right of cross-examination, and the second chancellor's decision not to order a new trial was within his discretion. View "Fletcher v. Diamondhead Incorporators" on Justia Law