Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

In 2014, the City of Draper passed and adopted a Resolution that levied a tax on property located within the Traverse Ridge Special Service District. Petitioners, five residents, collected certified voter signatures and asked the City to refer the Resolution to voters of the District. The City rejected the referendum petition, asserting that the tax levy was a nonreferable administrative action. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court granted the relief sought, holding (1) the Resolution was properly referable to the voters because it was legislative in nature; and (2) the City’s constitutional challenge to the subjurisdictional referendum statute failed. View "Mawhinney v. Draper City" on Justia Law

This case involves a challenge to Mississippi's disclosure requirements for ballot initiatives proposing amendments to the state constitution. Plaintiffs, Mississippi citizens, contend that the disclosure requirements impermissibly burden their First Amendment rights. The district court agreed and enjoined Mississippi from enforcing the requirements against small groups and individuals expending "just in excess of" Mississippi's $200 disclosure threshold. The court concluded that plaintiffs have standing where they have shown that they have a legitimate fear of criminal penalties for failure to comply with Chapter 17 of the Mississippi Code's disclosure requirements; plaintiffs' as-applied challenge, asserted both as a collective group and by each plaintiff individually, failed because the record is bereft of facts that would allow the court to assume that plaintiffs intend to raise "just in excess of" $200 as a group or as individuals; the requirements that Mississippi has enacted under Chapter 17 survive plaintiffs' facial challenge under the exacting scrutiny standard where the government has identified a sufficiently important government interest in its disclosure scheme to have an interest in knowing who is lobbying for Mississippians' vote, and is substantially related to this informational interest; and, therefore, the court reversed the district court's order and rendered judgment in favor of defendants were plaintiffs' as-applied and facial constitutional challenges failed. View "Justice, Jr., et al. v. Hosemann, et al." on Justia Law

Prior to March 2014, Appellant filed for re-election as a candidate for Justice of the Peace and subsequently filed for re-election as a candidate for the office of Helena-West Helena City Treasurer. Appellee filed a petition for writ of mandamus and for declaratory judgment seeking to remove Appellant’s name from the ballot, arguing that Appellant’s actions violated Ark. Code Ann. 7-5-111, which states that a person shall not run for election for more than one state, county, or municipal office if the elections are to be held on the same date. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw from the Justice of the Peace election. The circuit court denied Appellant’s motion and disqualified Appellant from the city-treasurer position. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly interpreted section 7-5-111 and disqualified Appellant from the city-treasurer race; (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss; and (3) Appellant’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his request for alternative relief to withdraw from the Justice of the Peace ballot was moot. View "Roberson v. Phillips County Election Comm'n" on Justia Law

In August, 2014, Elizabeth Joice filed a nomination paper with the Maricopa County Education Service Agency (“Agency”) announcing her intent to run for a vacant term of the Peoria Unified School District Governing Board. Joice also filed nominating petitions that did not comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-314(D). Raymond Malnar filed this action challenging Joice’s candidacy based on her non-compliant nomination petitions. The superior court upheld Malnar’s challenge and ordered that Joice’s name not be included on the 2014 general election ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the record reflected proper service on Joice, the superior court correctly found that it had jurisdiction over the matter; and (2) the superior court imposed an appropriate remedy for the violation. View "Malnar v. Joice" on Justia Law

In 2012, individuals and groups challenging the constitutional validity of a 2012 congressional redistricting plan issued a subpoena duces tecum to Pat Bainter, the president of Data Targeting, Inc., a political consulting company. The challengers sought certain documents in the possession of Bainter, Data Targeting, and the company's employees (collectively, Appellants) related to the redistricting litigation. Bainter did not file a motion for a protective order or raise any legal objection to producing the documents sought by the challengers but instead attended a deposition testifying that he had produced what he had found, which was a limited amount. After being served with additional subpoenas duces tecum including the disputed documents within their scope, and during six months of hearings and filings regarding document production, Appellants did not raise any claim of a First Amendment privilege. It was only after Appellants were held in contempt of court that Appellants raised a belated claim of a qualified First Amendment privilege. Ultimately, the trial court ordered that Appellants produce 538 pages of the disputed documents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Appellants’ belated assertions of a qualified First Amendment privilege had been waived. View "Bainter v. League of Women Voters of Fla." on Justia Law

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach sought, on behalf of their states, that the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) add language requiring documentary proof of citizenship to each state’s instructions on the federal voter registration form. The EAC concluded that the additional language was unnecessary and denied their requests. After Kobach and Bennett filed suit challenging the EAC’s decision, the district court concluded that the agency had a nondiscretionary duty to grant their requests. The EAC appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court’s erred in its conclusion: the decision was "plainly" in conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in "Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (ITCA)," (133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013)). "This is one of those instances in which the dissent clearly tells us what the law is not. It is not as if the proposition had not occurred to the majority of the Court. Applying traditional APA review standards, our thorough reading of the record establishes that Kobach and Bennett have failed to advance proof that registration fraud in the use of the Federal Form prevented Arizona and Kansas from enforcing their voter qualifications." View "Kobach v. United States Election Assistance Commission" on Justia Law

Our Community, Our Dollars filed a local-option petition with the county clerk, who certified that the proposal attained the requisite number of signatures required for the proposal to be placed on the ballot for the upcoming general election on November 4, 2014. The circuit court entered an order rescinding the county clerk’s certification of the local-option petition, concluding that the petition did not attain the required number of signatures. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred by refusing to consider in its review a number of signatures that the county clerk failed to count prior to certifying the local-option petition. View "Our Cmty., Our Dollars v. Bullock" on Justia Law