Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Two U.S. citizens who reside and vote in Burlington challenged a city charter amendment that allows noncitizens to vote in school board and school budget elections. The amendment, approved by the Legislature, permits noncitizens who are legal residents of the United States, live in Burlington, and take the Voter’s Oath to participate in these elections, but does not grant them the right to vote in state or federal elections. The plaintiffs argued that, although school elections appear local, they are actually statewide in nature because Burlington’s education budget is funded through the State Education Fund and these votes impact state finances and the interests of Vermonters statewide.The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that school elections are local in nature, focusing on issues such as selecting school board members and approving the school budget, and concluded that the noncitizen-voting provision did not implicate the Vermont Constitution’s voter-eligibility requirements for statewide elections.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Court held that the distinction between local and statewide elections depends on which level of government has authority over the election matter. If a question has been lawfully delegated to local government, the election is local; if not, it is statewide. The Court found that Vermont law delegates authority over school board and budget elections to localities. Although education is a matter of statewide concern, the State may constitutionally delegate decision-making over local school budgets to local voters. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the delegation was unlawful or that school elections are statewide under the Vermont Constitution.Accordingly, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that Burlington school elections are local and the charter amendment allowing noncitizen voting in those elections does not violate the Constitution’s voter-eligibility requirements for statewide elections. View "Morin v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

The case concerned a request from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for Nebraska’s statewide voter registration list, including sensitive personal information. Before the Secretary of State released the list, a membership organization and a registered voter filed suit, seeking to block or limit the disclosure, alleging that such release would violate Nebraska statutes restricting the dissemination and use of voter information. They argued that the DOJ was not entitled to all the requested data under federal law and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.In the District Court for Lancaster County, the Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had failed to join the DOJ as an indispensable party. The court agreed that the plaintiffs did not have standing, finding that they had not alleged a concrete injury and that concerns over possible future public disclosure or misuse were speculative. The court also found that Common Cause had not adequately pleaded associational standing. However, the court rejected the Secretary’s argument that the DOJ (or the U.S. Attorney General) was an indispensable party. The case was dismissed without prejudice on standing grounds, and the plaintiffs’ motions for a temporary injunction and summary judgment were denied.On appeal, while the matter was pending before the Nebraska Supreme Court, the Secretary released the voter list to the DOJ. The Nebraska Supreme Court determined that the case was moot because the list had already been disclosed, eliminating any live controversy or possibility of meaningful relief. The court declined to apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The main holding is that, due to the completed disclosure, the action no longer presented a justiciable issue. View "Common Cause v. Evnen" on Justia Law

The United States government, acting through the Attorney General, demanded that the Michigan Secretary of State provide an unredacted copy of Michigan’s statewide voter registration list, which includes sensitive personal information like dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and partial social security numbers. The Secretary of State provided only a version with personal information redacted, citing concerns about the lack of statutory authority for the federal government’s request. The government then filed suit, seeking to compel production of the unredacted list.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, the Secretary of State, the State of Michigan, and certain intervenors moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court granted the motions, concluding that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 did not authorize the federal government’s demand for the unredacted voter file. The government appealed, contesting only the dismissal of its claim under Title III.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The court held that Michigan’s qualified voter file is not a “record” that “comes into the possession” of the Secretary of State within the meaning of Title III, as it is an internally generated database rather than a record acquired from a third party. The court also determined that the government failed to comply with Title III’s procedural requirements for making such a demand, as its letters did not contain both the basis and the purpose for the request as required by statute. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the Secretary of State did not violate Title III by refusing to provide the unredacted voter file. View "United States v. Benson" on Justia Law

Two registered voters in Massachusetts challenged the Attorney General’s certification of an initiative petition designed to overhaul the state’s election system. The petition proposed replacing the existing partisan primaries and separate nomination process for nonparty candidates with a single, all-party primary. In this new system, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would appear on one ballot in September, and all voters could vote for any candidate. The two highest vote-getters would advance to the general election, with the option for voters to write in alternative candidates.After the petition was certified by the Attorney General, and sufficient signatures were collected, the measure was transmitted to the House of Representatives by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. As the Legislature did not enact the petition by the required deadline, it became eligible for placement on the statewide ballot, pending the collection of additional signatures. The plaintiffs filed their complaint directly in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, seeking to invalidate the Attorney General’s certification on the grounds that the petition contained “excluded matters” under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, specifically that it was inconsistent with the “freedom of elections” guaranteed by Article 9 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. A single justice reserved and reported the case to the full Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the proposed initiative does not significantly interfere with the constitutional rights of voters or candidates, as all candidates still have equal access to the ballot and all voters retain the right to participate fully, including through write-ins. Applying rational basis review, the court found the petition reasonably related to legitimate state interests and affirmed the Attorney General’s certification, remanding for entry of judgment in accordance with its decision. View "Jackson v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Eight Massachusetts voters challenged the Attorney General’s summary of an initiative petition proposing a reduction of the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4%. The summary stated that the proposed law would lower the tax rates on (1) personal taxable income consisting of interest and dividends, and (2) personal taxable income “other than interest, dividends or capital gain income, such as wages and salaries.” The plaintiffs argued that this language incorrectly informed voters that the long-term capital gains tax rate would remain unchanged, when in fact the petition would also lower that rate due to the way current law links the tax rate for most long-term capital gains to the rate for other income.After the Attorney General certified the petition and issued the summary, proponents collected over 85,000 signatures. The Secretary of the Commonwealth confirmed the required signatures and transmitted the petition to the House of Representatives. The plaintiffs then filed this action in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, seeking a declaration that the summary was unfair under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, and to enjoin the Secretary from placing the petition on the ballot. The proponents intervened, and the case was reserved and reported to the full Supreme Judicial Court on stipulated facts.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the Attorney General’s summary was not “fair” as required by Article 48 because it materially misstated the effect of the proposed law by excluding the reduction in the long-term capital gains tax rate, which would occur under current law. The Court concluded that this was not a minor omission but a significantly misleading statement likely to affect voters’ understanding. The Court ordered that the petition could not appear on the 2026 Statewide election ballot and remanded for entry of judgment enjoining the Secretary from placing the measure on the ballot. View "Finfer v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Several members of the public submitted requests to a large social media company seeking information about political advertisements displayed on its platforms to users in Washington State. The company did not dispute that its responses to these requests failed to comply with Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) and the law’s implementing regulations, as it did not provide all the required information. The State of Washington, through the Attorney General’s Office, filed suit against the company, alleging multiple violations of the FCPA’s disclosure requirements.The case was heard in King County Superior Court, where both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the State, holding the company liable for violating the FCPA, and imposed maximum statutory penalties for each advertisement for which the required information was not disclosed. The court found the violations to be intentional, trebled both the civil penalties and attorney fees, and granted an injunction. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings on liability, statutory interpretation regarding penalty calculation, and the constitutionality of the penalty assessed.Before the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, the company argued that the FCPA’s disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment as applied, that the penalty was improperly calculated, and that the penalty violated the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. The Supreme Court, with no single majority opinion, affirmed the company’s liability under the FCPA, holding that the law as applied does not violate the First Amendment. The court also let the penalty judgment stand, as no majority view existed to reverse or modify it, and further held by a majority that the penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Thus, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, upholding both the liability finding and the civil penalty. View "State v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

A candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor of Georgia, who was not the incumbent, challenged a unique provision of Georgia’s campaign finance law. This law allows only the incumbent Governor and Lieutenant Governor to establish and control so-called “leadership committees” with the ability to receive unlimited contributions and coordinate spending directly with their campaigns, advantages not available to challengers or other candidates. The challenger entered the 2026 gubernatorial primary and quickly discovered that his opponent, the sitting Lieutenant Governor, had amassed substantial campaign resources through such a leadership committee, while the challenger remained subject to standard contribution limits.After filing suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the challenger sought a preliminary injunction to stop the Lieutenant Governor’s leadership committee from raising or spending further funds in support of his campaign. The district court initially issued a temporary restraining order, then, after further proceedings, granted a preliminary injunction, holding that the challenger was likely to succeed on his claim that the law violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and that the leadership committee’s actions could be fairly attributed to state action. The district court determined that the law’s favoritism toward select officials could not be justified and that the harm to the challenger was irreparable. However, the injunction was stayed pending appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. The court held that the selective fundraising advantage granted to certain incumbents by the leadership committee statute was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as it imposed different contribution limits on candidates for the same office without sufficient justification. The court also found that the leadership committee’s conduct constituted state action, making it subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Jackson v. Jones" on Justia Law

A group seeking to advance a constitutional initiative in Montana proposed an amendment that would restrict the powers of “artificial persons”—such as corporations, nonprofits, and similar entities—by excluding the authority to engage in political spending to influence voters. The initiative also specified that violations would result in loss of state-conferred privileges, subject to possible reinstatement by the legislature. The proponents submitted a proposed ballot statement summarizing the measure for voters.The Montana Attorney General rejected the proponents’ statement, citing concerns that it misleadingly focused only on corporations, did not fully explain the scope of affected entities, and failed to adequately define key terms. The Attorney General then issued a revised summary. The proponents challenged this revised statement in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, arguing that the Attorney General exceeded his statutory authority and that his statement was inaccurate, argumentative, or prejudicial.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana found that the Attorney General acted within his authority in rejecting and revising the ballot statement, as long as he identified statutory deficiencies and the new statement complied with requirements of clarity, neutrality, and accuracy. The Court held that most of the Attorney General’s revised statement met statutory requirements, except for one sentence that could mislead voters regarding the revocation of constitutional rights. The Court ordered that this sentence be removed and certified the amended statement to the Secretary of State. The main holding is that, after removing the noncompliant sentence, the Attorney General’s revised ballot statement sufficiently satisfied statutory requirements for impartiality and clarity as required by Montana law. View "Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

A dispute arose following the April 22, 2025 Democratic primary runoff election for mayor of the City of Canton, Mississippi. The contest centered on whether residents of recently annexed areas—Kingston Subdivision, Westside Trailer Park, and the Trails of Madison—were appropriately allowed to vote. Although these areas had been annexed and their inclusion in municipal elections was upheld in Peco Foods, Inc. v. City of Canton (In re Enlarging City of Canton), concerns were raised that updates to the Statewide Elections Management System (SEMS) were incomplete, potentially disenfranchising voters. On the day before the election, a petition sought to delay certification and allow regular ballots for residents of the affected areas. The Madison County Circuit Court instead permitted eligible voters from those areas to cast affidavit ballots.After the election, in which Tim Scott Taylor won by forty-three votes, Comelia Walker requested a ballot-box examination and subsequently filed several petitions for judicial review and election contest in the Circuit Court. Walker alleged that failures in SEMS updates, lack of notification, and various ballot irregularities materially affected the election’s integrity. The circuit court, after hearing evidence, found that Walker failed to prove any eligible voters had been denied the right to vote, nor could she demonstrate that irregularities affected the election outcome. The circuit court denied and dismissed Walker's petitions with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed Walker’s claims of disenfranchisement, equal protection violations, and ballot irregularities. The Court concluded that affidavit voting did not disenfranchise voters, that no evidence supported equal protection violations, and that the alleged irregularities were either minor or unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that no statutory departures occurred sufficient to destroy the election’s integrity or make the will of the voters impossible to ascertain. View "Walker v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In this matter, Alabama enacted a congressional district map in 2023 that included only one district in which Black voters constituted a majority. Plaintiffs challenged the map, arguing that it diluted Black voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. The essential factual dispute centered on whether Alabama’s map failed to provide an additional district offering Black voters an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, and whether the State had intentionally avoided implementing a remedial map previously ordered by the court.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama first enjoined the use of Alabama’s 2023 congressional map, finding it violated Section 2 because it did not include an additional Black-opportunity district and concluding that the State’s actions also violated the Fourteenth Amendment as a deliberate refusal to comply with prior remedial requirements. After the Supreme Court vacated this injunction in light of its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the District Court issued a new injunction on similar grounds. State officials then applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of the District Court’s order.The Supreme Court of the United States granted Alabama’s application for a stay, holding that the State is likely to succeed on the merits. The Court concluded that the District Court failed to apply the updated standards for Section 2 liability announced in Callais, particularly the requirement that a plaintiff’s alternative map must perform “just as well” with respect to all constitutionally permissible districting criteria, and erred in its evaluation of alleged discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court stayed the District Court’s order pending further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of not altering election rules close to an election. View "Allen v. Milligan" on Justia Law