Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, Siddhanth Sharma, a convicted felon, challenged North Carolina's felony-disclosure requirement for candidates running for federal office. This state law mandates that candidates disclose any felony convictions and provide additional information about the convictions and the restoration of citizenship rights. Sharma, who announced his candidacy for North Carolina’s Thirteenth Congressional District seat, argued that this requirement violated the Qualifications Clause and the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed Sharma's claims. The court found that Sharma had standing to challenge the felony-disclosure requirement but concluded that it did not constitute an additional qualification for office. The court also held that the requirement did not violate the First Amendment, as it served a substantial interest in promoting an informed electorate and posed only a modest burden. Sharma's challenge to the address-disclosure requirement was dismissed for lack of standing, as the court found his injury insufficiently particularized.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the felony-disclosure requirement is constitutional. The court reasoned that the requirement does not exclude candidates from the ballot or disadvantage political viewpoints, and it falls within the state's authority to regulate elections. The court also found that the requirement imposes only a light burden on First Amendment rights and serves the state's interest in fostering an informed electorate. However, the court vacated the judgment on the address-disclosure challenge and remanded it to the district court with instructions to dismiss it as moot, as Sharma's address was already publicly available in the voter-search database. View "Siddhanth Sharma v. Alan Hirsch" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Kansas's restrictions on private parties partially filling out mail-ballot applications before sending them to registered voters. Plaintiffs, VoteAmerica and Voter Participation Center (VPC), argue that these restrictions violate their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. They seek an injunction to prevent Kansas officials from enforcing the law.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ruled in favor of the plaintiffs after a bench trial based on stipulated facts. The court applied strict scrutiny to the law, finding that it violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The court held that the mailing of prefilled applications was protected speech and that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court also found that the law infringed on the plaintiffs' associational rights and declared the law unconstitutionally overbroad.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first determined that the prefilled applications should be considered separately from the cover letter included in the mailings. It then concluded that mailing the prefilled applications constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the court rejected the application of strict scrutiny under the Meyer-Buckley framework, finding that the law did not restrict access to a fundamental avenue of political discourse. The court also rejected the argument that the law was subject to strict scrutiny due to speaker discrimination, as the law's speaker-based exception did not reflect a content preference.The Tenth Circuit held that the proper level of scrutiny for the law is intermediate scrutiny, as the law is a content-based but viewpoint-neutral regulation. The court reversed the district court's rulings on the overbreadth and freedom-of-association claims, remanding for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants on these claims. The court also remanded the free-speech claim for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, applying intermediate scrutiny. View "VoteAmerica v. Schwab" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Chris Robles and the California Voting Rights Initiative sued the City of Ontario, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act and the California Voting Rights Act due to the city's at-large method of electing council members, which they claimed diluted Latino electoral influence. The parties settled, agreeing to transition to district-based elections by 2024 and included a provision for attorney fees incurred up to that point.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County initially sustained the city's demurrer but later entered a stipulated judgment based on the settlement. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to enforce the stipulated judgment, claiming the city violated several statutory requirements during the districting process. The court found the city had not complied with the stipulated judgment but questioned the validity of the settlement terms. Eventually, the city adopted the plaintiffs' proposed district map.Plaintiffs sought additional attorney fees for enforcing the stipulated judgment. The trial court denied this request, interpreting the stipulated judgment as precluding further fees and deeming plaintiffs' enforcement efforts unnecessary. Plaintiffs appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the trial court's order. The appellate court held that the plain language of the stipulated judgment allowed plaintiffs to seek attorney fees for enforcing its terms. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine if plaintiffs were prevailing parties and, if so, the appropriate amount of attorney fees. The appellate court clarified that the determination of the prevailing party should be based on whether the party achieved its litigation objectives, not on the perceived necessity of their actions. View "Robles v. City of Ontario" on Justia Law

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