Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Progress for Cane Hill, a local-option ballot committee, collected enough signatures to propose a local ordinance to make two precincts in Cane Hill "wet." However, Washington County Clerk Becky Lewallen rejected the initiative because 332 of the signatures were collected by paid canvassers who were not Arkansas residents.Progress for Cane Hill challenged the rejection in the Washington County Circuit Court. The circuit court found that the residency requirement in Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-103(a)(6) did not apply to local-option ballot initiatives and ordered Lewallen to certify the initiative's sufficiency. Lewallen appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and focused on statutory interpretation. The court held that the residency requirement for paid canvassers in section 7-9-103(a)(6) does apply to local-option ballot initiatives. The court reasoned that the Local Option Code incorporates the general Election Code, which includes the residency requirement. The court found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and reversed and remanded the case, ordering that votes on the ballot measure not be counted. View "LEWALLEN v. PROGRESS FOR CANE HILL" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of relators seeking to place a proposed constitutional amendment titled "Ohio Voters Bill of Rights" before Ohio voters. The relators submitted the text and a summary of their proposed amendment to the Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, for certification. The Attorney General refused to certify the summary, arguing that the title "Ohio Voters Bill of Rights" was not a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment.Previously, the relators had submitted their petition with a different title, "Secure and Fair Elections," which the Attorney General also rejected for similar reasons. The relators revised their petition and resubmitted it with the new title, but the Attorney General again refused to certify it, focusing solely on the title's perceived inaccuracy.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court determined that the Attorney General's authority under R.C. 3519.01(A) is limited to examining the summary of a proposed constitutional amendment, not its title. The court found that the Attorney General exceeded his statutory authority by rejecting the petition based on the title. The court noted that the statutory scheme differentiates between a "summary" and a "title," and the Attorney General's duty is to review only the summary.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a limited writ of mandamus, ordering the Attorney General to examine the summary of the relators' proposed amendment within ten days, determine whether it is a fair and truthful statement, and, if so, certify and forward the petition to the Ohio Ballot Board. The court emphasized that the Attorney General must perform his statutory duty without considering the title of the proposed amendment. View "State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost" on Justia Law

The case involves the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the North Carolina Republican Party (NCGOP) filing two state law claims against the North Carolina State Board of Elections (State Board) and its members. The claims, one statutory and one constitutional, allege that the State Board failed to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which mandates certain voter registration and maintenance procedures. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) intervened as a defendant. The plaintiffs argue that the State Board's noncompliance with HAVA led to improper voter registrations, potentially affecting 225,000 voters.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially reviewed the case. The district court found it had original jurisdiction over the state statutory claim but not the state constitutional claim. It dismissed the statutory claim, ruling that the relevant statutory provision did not provide a private right of action. Consequently, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim and remanded it to state court, also holding that Section 1443 did not provide a valid basis for removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court's remand order was improper. It found that the district court possessed original jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim under Section 1331 because the claim contained an embedded federal question. The court also determined that removal was permissible under Section 1441. Additionally, the court held that the defendants validly removed the constitutional claim pursuant to Section 1443(2), which allows for removal in cases involving the refusal to perform an act on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with laws providing for equal rights. The court reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "RNC v. North Carolina State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to a Mississippi statute that allows absentee ballots to be received up to five days after the federal Election Day. The plaintiffs, including the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party, argued that this state law conflicts with federal statutes that establish a uniform Election Day for federal elections. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin state officials from enforcing the post-election ballot deadline.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi consolidated two lawsuits and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which included various state election officials. The district court held that Mississippi's statute did not conflict with federal law and thus was not preempted. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the federal Election Day statutes preempt Mississippi's law because federal law mandates that all ballots must be received by Election Day. The court emphasized that the term "election" includes both the casting and receipt of ballots, and that the election is not consummated until all ballots are received. The court also noted that historical practices and other federal statutes support this interpretation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine appropriate relief, considering the proximity to upcoming elections. The court also vacated the district court's summary judgment on the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims and remanded for reconsideration. View "Republican National Committee v. Wetzel" on Justia Law

Matthew Eric Zinda filed a petition under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44, requesting that Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, and Deborah Erickson, Crow Wing County Auditor, exclude Josh Heintzeman from the 2024 primary and general election ballots for State Representative for Legislative District 6B. Heintzeman had filed an affidavit of candidacy listing his party as “Republican.” Zinda argued that Heintzeman did not seek the nomination of a major political party because he did not specify “Republican Party of Minnesota” and thus should not be on the primary ballot.The Minnesota Supreme Court directed the parties to file responses and memoranda. Zinda was the only other candidate who filed an affidavit of candidacy for the Republican primary for the same office, listing his party as “Republican Party of Minnesota.” The court noted that Heintzeman won the Republican primary and would appear on the general election ballot as the Republican candidate.The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Zinda did not prove that the respondents committed an error by placing Heintzeman on the primary ballot. The court found that the term “Republican” is understood to refer to the Republican Party of Minnesota, as Minnesota law precludes other parties from using the word “Republican” on the ballot. The court also concluded that Minn. Stat. § 204B.06, subd. 1, does not require candidates to list the full name of a major political party on their affidavit of candidacy. Therefore, the court denied Zinda’s petition, allowing Heintzeman to remain on the ballot as a Republican candidate. View "Zinda v. Simon" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a proposed constitutional amendment in Utah, referred to as Amendment D. The amendment, proposed by the Utah State Legislature, seeks to change the state constitution in three significant ways: specifying that the right to alter or reform the government can only be exercised through constitutional processes, banning foreign influence in the initiative and referendum processes, and granting the Legislature unlimited power to amend or repeal any law passed by a citizen initiative. The controversy centers on whether the amendment was properly submitted to voters and whether it was published as required by the Utah Constitution.The Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County reviewed the case and found that the Legislature had not complied with the constitutional requirements for submitting and publishing the proposed amendment. The court ruled that the ballot title for Amendment D was misleading and did not accurately reflect the substance of the amendment, thus failing to meet the Submission Clause of the Utah Constitution. Additionally, the court found that the Legislature did not cause the amendment to be published in newspapers across the state for two months preceding the election, as required by the Publication Clause. Consequently, the district court issued a preliminary injunction declaring Amendment D void and ordered that any votes cast on the amendment not be counted.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court agreed that the ballot title was misleading and did not provide voters with a clear understanding of what they were voting for or against, thus violating the Submission Clause. The Court also held that the Legislature failed to comply with the Publication Clause by not ensuring continuous publication of the amendment's text in newspapers for the required two-month period. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of harms and the public interest favored issuing the preliminary injunction. As a result, Amendment D was declared void, and any votes cast on it will have no effect. View "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature" on Justia Law

Two electors, Faith Genser and Frank Matis, submitted mail-in ballots for the 2024 Primary Election without the required Secrecy Envelopes. The Butler County Board of Elections identified the defect and notified the electors that their mail-in ballots would not be counted. The electors then cast provisional ballots on Election Day. The Board did not count these provisional ballots, leading the electors to file a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County.The trial court dismissed the petition, upholding the Board's decision. It concluded that the Election Code did not support counting provisional ballots when a defective mail-in ballot had been submitted. The court emphasized that the Election Code's requirements for mail-in ballots were mandatory and that the Board's role was to ensure compliance with these requirements during canvassing.The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the electors' provisional ballots should be counted. It found ambiguity in the Election Code's language regarding when a ballot is considered "cast" or "voted." The court interpreted the provisions to mean that a ballot must be valid and counted to preclude the counting of a provisional ballot. It concluded that the General Assembly intended to allow voters to remedy their circumstances when their initial mail-in ballot was invalid or incomplete.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court's decision. It held that the Election Code required the Board to count the electors' provisional ballots because their mail-in ballots were void due to the lack of Secrecy Envelopes. The Court emphasized that a void ballot has no legal effect and that the Election Code's provisions aim to prevent double voting while ensuring that every qualified voter has the opportunity to cast a vote. View "Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves two competing slates of candidates seeking to appear on the ballot for the March 5, 2024, primary election for the Democratic Town Committee for the seventh district of Hartford. The plaintiffs, members of one slate, challenged the validity of a petition sheet submitted by the defendants, members of the other slate, on the grounds that one signature was not signed by the named individual but by his son under a purported power of attorney. The defendants counterclaimed, arguing that five petition sheets submitted by the plaintiffs should be invalidated for not including a written tally of the number of verified signatures as required by statute.The Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford found that the signature in question on the defendants' petition sheet was invalid because there was no evidence that the son had a valid power of attorney or that it included the authority to sign political petitions. Consequently, the court rejected the entire petition sheet, reducing the defendants' valid signatures below the required threshold, and ordered their removal from the ballot. The court also found that one of the plaintiffs' petition sheets contained a forged signature and rejected it, but it ruled that the other five challenged sheets substantially complied with the statutory requirements despite lacking the signature tally.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the trial court that the signature on the defendants' petition sheet was invalid and that the entire sheet must be rejected. The court held that the statutory language was clear in requiring the rejection of any petition page with procedural violations, including false attestations. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of substantial compliance for the plaintiffs' five petition sheets lacking the required tally. The court held that these sheets must also be rejected, which would reduce the plaintiffs' valid signatures below the required threshold, disqualifying both slates from the primary ballot.The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with the case remanded for further proceedings to determine the conduct of the primary election with both slates disqualified. View "Airey v. Feliciano" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Bill Paschall and Arkansans for Patient Access (APA), sought a declaration from the court that the ballot title for the proposed "Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2024" was sufficient and requested that votes for the amendment be counted in the November 5, 2024, general election. The proposed amendment aimed to expand access to medical marijuana and included provisions for legalizing marijuana possession for all purposes if federal law changes. The Secretary of State, John Thurston, and intervenors, Jim Bell and Protect Arkansas Kids (PAK), opposed the petition, arguing that the proposal was insufficient due to misleading language and failure to meet signature requirements.The Secretary of State rejected APA's petition on the grounds that APA did not meet the 90,704 minimum-signature requirement, as affidavits were signed by individuals from Nationwide Ballot Initiative (NBA) rather than APA. PAK argued that the popular name and ballot title were misleading, as they did not inform voters about the amendment's broader implications, including the legalization of recreational marijuana and changes to the Arkansas Constitution unrelated to medical marijuana.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and found that the Secretary of State erred in rejecting the petition based on the signature requirement, as APA's delegation to NBA was permissible under Arkansas law. However, the court agreed with PAK that the popular name and ballot title were misleading. The court held that the proposed amendment's popular name suggested it was limited to medical marijuana, while it also sought to legalize recreational marijuana and amend unrelated constitutional provisions. The ballot title failed to adequately inform voters about these significant changes.The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied the petitioners' request, granted the intervenors' request for relief, and enjoined the Secretary of State from canvassing or certifying any ballots cast for the proposed amendment in the November 5, 2024, general election. View "PASCHALL V. THURSTON" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellants, members of the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners, appealed a decision by the Crittenden County Circuit Court. The appellees, Shirley Brown and Lavonda Taylor, filed a petition seeking to compel the Board to conduct early voting at specific locations for the 2024 General Election. The Board had failed to unanimously approve an early voting site in West Memphis, leading the County Clerk, Paula Brown, to designate the Seventh Street Church of Christ as an early voting site. The appellees also sought to maintain the First Baptist Church as an early voting site, as it had been used in the 2022 General Election.The Crittenden County Circuit Court partially granted the appellees' petition, ordering the Board to conduct early voting at the Church of Christ but denied the request to include the First Baptist Church. The court found that the County Clerk had the authority under Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-418(a)(1)(A) to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it ruled that the statute requiring polling sites to remain the same as the previous general election did not apply to early voting sites.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision with modifications. The Supreme Court agreed that the County Clerk had the authority to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it modified the writ of mandamus to clarify that the Board must only comply with its statutory duties regarding early voting conducted by the County Clerk. On cross-appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the First Baptist Church must remain an early voting site for the 2024 General Election, as the Board had not voted to change it from the 2022 General Election. View "Barton v. Brown" on Justia Law