Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, black and Hispanic registered voters in Albany County, sued the County and the Board of Elections (collectively, defendants) for enacting a redistricting plan for the Albany County Legislature (Local Law C) in response to the 2010 United States census that allegedly diluted black and Hispanic voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973, by failing to provide for five majority-minority districts (MMDs). The court concluded that plaintiffs' appeal was not moot, even though the challenged elections have not taken place. While the court identified legal error in the district court's determination that plaintiffs failed to make the majority-minority showing required to satisfy the first step of a vote dilution claim as identified in Thornburg v. Gingles, the court identified no error in the district court's determination that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success as the third majority bloc-voting step of the Gingles inquiry, or in the court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief on that ground. View "Pope v. County of Albany" on Justia Law

Two groups of plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment actions to challenge the constitutional validity of the congressional redistricting map in H.B. 193, claiming that it failed to meet the constitutional requirements for compactness. The trial court ruled that Plaintiffs failed to prove the map violated Mo. Const. art III, 45 and entered judgments in favor of Defendants, the attorney general and secretary of state, as well as the intervenors, members of the General Assembly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in its interpretation of the constitutional compactness standard; and (2) Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving that the trial court's judgment was against the weight of the evidence. View "Pearson v. Koster" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Missouri citizens and voters, filed a declaratory judgment action against the State and secretary of state to challenge the constitutionality of the redistricting plan for the Missouri House of Representatives filed by the nonpartisan reapportionment commission. The trial court permitted three current members of the House of Representatives to intervene in the lawsuit. The court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding (1) Plaintiff failed to prove that the plan did not meet the constitutional requirements for population, contiguity, and compactness; and (2) the nonpartisan reapportionment commission did not violate the "sunshine law." The court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Plaintiffs failed to prove the House reapportionment map was unconstitutional and in permitting intervention by the three House members; an (2) the trial court properly found that the nonpartisan reapportionment commission did not violate the sunshine law. Affirmed. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellees, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, enjoyed ballot access privileges from 2007 to 2010, when they were unable to show their respective memberships consisted of at least one percent of registered Maryland voters or that their nominees for Governor received at least one percent of the total vote. Appellees then submitted 10,000 petition signatures to Appellant, the State Board of Elections, to regain their ballot access privileges. Appellant determined that many of the submitted petition signatures were invalid and, thus, Appellees did not satisfy the statutory requirements. Appellees sought a declaratory judgment that Appellant incorrectly applied the law regarding validation of petition signatures and that the applicable law was whether there was "sufficient cumulative information" from which Appellant could identify a signatory on a petition as a registered voter. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Appellees. The Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court, holding (1) the court erred in relying on a supposed "sufficient cumulative information" standard, as the requirements for petition signatures under Md. Code Ann. Elec. Law 6-203(a) are mandatory; and (2) pursuant to section 6-203(b), Appellant appropriately refused to validate and count duplicate signatures of individuals who previously signed the same petition. Remanded. View "Bd. of Elections v. Libertarian Party" on Justia Law

The Montana Legislature enacted Senate Bill 268 (SB 268), which submitted to the electorate the question whether certain statutory changes should be made regarding the election of justices to the Montana Supreme Court. SB 268 was to be submitted to the voters at a special election and was to appear on the ballot as Legislative Referendum No. 119 (LR-119). Plaintiffs, Montana citizens, taxpayers, and electors, sought a declaratory judgment that LR-119 was constitutionally defective. The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs and ordered the Secretary of State to decertify LR-119 and enjoined the Secretary from presenting LR-119 on the election ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the non-retiring justices on the Court were not required to recuse themselves from participating in the decision of this appeal; (2) Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to LR-119 was justiciable; (3) LR-119's proposed amendments to the qualifications and structure of the Supreme Court were facially unconstitutional; and (4) the constitutionally infirm provisions of LR-119 were not severable from the remainder of the referendum. View "Reichert v. State" on Justia Law

Shelby County contended that when Congress reauthorized section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a), in 2006, it exceeded its enumerated powers. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General. Applying the congruence and proportionality standard of review in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Shelby County, AL v. Holder, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit challenging the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973c, arguing that, as amended by the VRA's 2006 reauthorization, section 5 exceeded the powers granted to Congress by the Reconstruction Amendments and violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. The district court initially dismissed the suit for lack of standing but the court reversed and remanded based on the standing of plaintiff John Nix, who had announced his intention to run for the Kinston City Council in the 2011 elections. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the government, holding that section 5 was constitutional. While the appeal was pending before the court, and before oral argument could take place, the Justice Department changed its mind in light of some new evidence that it received in a separate proceeding. The Department subsequently informed the court and the parties that the Attorney General was withdrawing his objection to the proposed change. Three days later, the government filed its merits brief arguing in part that the case had been mooted by the Attorney General's actions. After considering the supplemental briefing from both parties, the court agreed with the government and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Laroque, et al. v. Holder, et al." on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals stemmed from a general election on Issue 6 in Lake Township, Stark County, that approved expansion of the a police district to include all of Lake Township's unincorporated territory and levied a property tax for that purpose. The issue was approved by the voters. Subsequently, many of those who had voted in the election filed a petition contesting the election approving Issue 6 due to an error in ballot language and requesting that the election be set aside. The common pleas court entered a judgment granting the contest and setting aside the election result approving Issue 6, determining that the error in ballot language constituted an election irregularity and that the election irregularity made the election result on Issue 6 uncertain. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this case presented the extreme circumstances of a misstatement in ballot wording that understated a proposed tax levy by ten times less than the true amount to be collected, which misled the voters and affected the integrity of the election on Issue 6; and (2) based on the applicable law, the common pleas court did not err in granting the contest and setting aside the election. View "In re Election held on Stark County Issue Six" on Justia Law

This case was before the court for review of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Snipes v. Telli, which held that the Florida Constitution permitted Broward County to impose term limits on the office of the county commissioner. Because the court receded from its decision in Cook v. City of Jacksonville, the court approved the Fourth District's decision and held that Broward County's term limits did not violate Florida's Constitution. View "Telli v. Broward County, et al." on Justia Law

Henry Cook appealed the trial court's ruling that he was not a resident of Randolph County and therefore not an elector qualified to vote in that county. The court granted Cook's application for discretionary appeal and directed the parties to address the court's jurisdiction over this appeal as well as the merits of the trial court's ruling. Because a determination of voter qualifications, not clearly linked to a particular election, did not bring an appeal within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "cases of election contest," and because no other basis for this court's jurisdiction appeared to exist, the court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals and did not reach the merits. View "Cook v. Board of Registrars of Randolph County" on Justia Law