Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Christopher Nardi submitted an APRA request to the Indiana Election Division for documents related to Indiana’s voter-registration system. He requested three specific documents: the latest standard operating procedures, build notes, and the latest contract with third-party vendors. The Division denied the requests, citing security concerns, but directed Nardi to an online portal for the contract, which he accessed but failed to save. Nardi then filed a complaint with Indiana’s Public Access Counselor (PAC), which recommended partial disclosure. The Division refused, leading Nardi to file a lawsuit in Marion Superior Court.The Marion Superior Court conducted an in-camera review and ordered the Division to provide a redacted version of the contract but denied the other requests. Nardi petitioned for attorney’s fees, claiming he substantially prevailed. The trial court awarded him one-third of the requested fees, reasoning he prevailed on one of three requests. Both parties appealed. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the partial summary judgment but reversed the fee award, concluding Nardi did not substantially prevail.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case, holding that Nardi substantially prevailed by obtaining a wrongfully withheld public record. The Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this determination. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s mechanical reduction of attorney’s fees to one-third. The case was remanded for the trial court to recalculate the fees, considering the time spent on the successful claim and whether the time spent on unsuccessful claims was indivisible from the successful claim. The Indiana Supreme Court emphasized that APRA should be liberally construed to promote transparency and accountability in government. View "Nardi v. King" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Arizona district court challenging the state's voting system, claiming it did not adequately protect voters' rights and should be replaced with a hand-counted paper ballot system. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Subsequently, the district court imposed sanctions on the plaintiffs' attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz, for filing a frivolous complaint.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and granted the defendants' motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The district court found that the complaint contained false and misleading statements and ordered the plaintiffs' attorneys to pay a portion of the defendants' legal fees. Dershowitz, who signed the complaint as "of counsel," was held jointly and severally liable for a portion of the sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's holding that "of counsel" attorneys can be sanctioned under Rule 11 for signing frivolous complaints. The Ninth Circuit rejected Dershowitz's argument that the sanctions violated the First Amendment and found that the district court imposed sanctions to deter frivolous actions, not to silence speech. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the imposition of sanctions on Dershowitz, as the liability of "of counsel" attorneys under Rule 11 had not been clearly articulated in previous case law. The court declined to apply the rule retroactively but stated that it would apply to any signed pleadings after the publication of this opinion. View "Lake v. Gates" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Arizona district court challenging the state's electronic voting system, arguing it should be replaced with a system using exclusively hand-counted paper ballots. They also sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the use of computerized equipment in elections. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Lake v. Fontes. Subsequently, the district court granted the defendants' motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs' lead attorneys, Andrew J. Parker and Kurt Olsen, and their law firms, holding them liable for $122,200.00 in fees.The district court found that the lead attorneys made false, misleading, and unsupported factual assertions in their first amended complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, and did not conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry. Key false allegations included claims that Arizona does not use paper ballots and that its voting machines are not tested. The district court concluded that these misleading statements rendered the complaint factually insufficient and open to sanction. Additionally, the court found that the attorneys acted recklessly and in bad faith, particularly in the timing and nature of their motion for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees, as the lead attorneys' actions were both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry. The court also upheld the finding of bad faith, noting that the attorneys' behavior and timing in bringing the motion for a preliminary injunction were reckless. View "Lake v. Gates" on Justia Law

The incumbent candidate, Vern Gavin, lost the election to challenger Wanda Evers. Gavin filed a petition for judicial review in the Hinds County Circuit Court, claiming Evers was an unqualified elector due to her residency outside the district and citing several voting irregularities. The circuit court granted summary judgment on the election irregularities and dismissed the residency claim under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Gavin's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to his appeal.The Hinds County Circuit Court initially reviewed the case. Gavin challenged Evers's residency, noting her voting address was transferred outside the district and back within it, and she claimed a homestead exemption at a Jackson address. The Hinds County Executive Committee certified Evers as a candidate despite Gavin's challenge. Evers defeated Gavin in the runoff election. Gavin filed a contest of the election and a petition for judicial review, requesting a special election due to alleged irregularities and disputing Evers's residency qualification. The circuit court granted summary judgment on the election irregularities and dismissed the residency claim, finding Evers met the two-year residency requirement.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court's rulings, finding no error. The court held that Gavin received proper notice of the summary judgment motion and that the circuit court did not err in considering both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment. The court also upheld the exclusion of certain affidavits as hearsay and irrelevant. The court found that Gavin failed to present evidence of election irregularities affecting the outcome and that Evers met the residency requirement. The court also affirmed the denial of Gavin's motion for reconsideration, finding the new evidence presented was cumulative and for impeachment purposes only. View "Gavin v. Evers" on Justia Law

A voter in Sarasota County, Florida, who is not affiliated with any political party, challenged Florida's closed primary election system. He argued that the system forces him to either join a political party to have a meaningful vote or forfeit his right to vote in primary elections, which he claimed was unconstitutional. The district court dismissed his case, concluding that he lacked standing and failed to state a claim for relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the voter had standing to sue the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections because his exclusion from primary elections was traceable to the Supervisor and could be redressed by a court order. However, the court determined that the voter lacked standing to sue the Florida Secretary of State, as the Secretary did not have direct control over the Supervisor's actions.On the merits, the court applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the voter's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court concluded that the burdens imposed by Florida's closed primary system on the voter's rights were minimal. The court found that the state's interests in preserving political parties as viable and identifiable interest groups and enhancing candidates' electioneering efforts outweighed the minimal burdens on the voter's rights.The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the claims against the Florida Secretary of State without prejudice and to dismiss the claims against the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections with prejudice. View "Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State" on Justia Law

In this case, the Governor of Minnesota issued a writ of special election on December 27, 2024, to fill a vacancy in the office of State Representative for District 40B in Ramsey County. The writ scheduled the special election for January 28, 2025. The Minnesota Voters Alliance, two voters from House District 40B, and the Republican Party of Minnesota challenged the writ, arguing it was issued prematurely.The Ramsey County District Court had previously ruled on December 20, 2024, in an election contest brought by Paul Wikstrom against Curtis Johnson, the elected representative for House District 40B. The court found that Johnson did not meet the residency requirement to serve as the district's representative. No appeal was filed against this decision. Johnson subsequently sent a letter to the Governor on December 27, 2024, stating he would not accept his seat and resigned effective immediately.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the writ of special election was issued prematurely. The court held that Minnesota Statutes section 204D.19, subdivision 4, which governs the timing of special elections following a successful election contest, required the writ to be issued 22 days after the start of the legislative session unless the house passed a resolution regarding the court's determination. The court found that Johnson's letter did not create a vacancy that allowed for the writ's issuance on December 27, 2024, as he was not an incumbent and could not resign from an office he did not hold.The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the petition, quashed the writ of special election, and ordered the cancellation of the special election scheduled for January 28, 2025. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Walz" on Justia Law

Robin M. McNabb, a former Municipal Court Judge for Lenoir City, filed an election contest against Gregory H. Harrison, who won the election for the same position in 2022. McNabb argued that Harrison was ineligible to serve because he had not resided within the Lenoir City corporate limits for the year preceding the election, as required by Article VI, Section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution.The Chancery Court for Loudon County found that the term "district" in Article VI, Section 4 referred to the modern-day judicial district. Since Harrison resided in the Ninth Judicial District, the court ruled him eligible to serve. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but modified the judgment, stating that "district" referred to Loudon County, not the Ninth Judicial District, because the Lenoir City Municipal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Loudon County General Sessions Court.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower courts. It held that Article VI, Section 4 requires a candidate for a municipal judgeship to be a resident of the same municipality to which they will be assigned. Therefore, Harrison needed to reside in Lenoir City for one year prior to the election. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Chancery Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "McNabb v. Harrison" on Justia Law

In Washington State, most voters cast their votes by mail, and each voter must swear under oath that they are eligible to cast that ballot. Election workers must verify that the signature on the voter’s sworn ballot declaration matches the signature on file. If the signature cannot be verified, the ballot may be challenged, and if the voter does not cure their ballot in time, their vote will not be counted. The plaintiffs argue that this signature verification process results in some lawfully cast ballots not being counted, thus violating the due process, privileges and immunities, and freedom of elections clauses of the state constitution.The trial court denied all parties' summary judgment motions and adopted the Anderson-Burdick framework to determine the level of scrutiny for the case. The court concluded that additional factual development was required and reserved ruling on whether signature verification was severable from the rest of the statutory scheme. The defendants moved to certify the trial court’s order for immediate review, which the plaintiffs did not oppose. The court certified two questions for review: the appropriate standard of judicial review for the plaintiffs’ facial challenges and whether any party is entitled to summary judgment under that standard.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that signature verification, when coupled with the increasingly expansive cure system, does not facially violate the state constitution. The court held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment, reversing in part, affirming in part, and remanding for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court emphasized that the right to vote is fundamental and that the signature verification process, as part of a robust system of checks, provides both security and ease of voting. View "Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

In 2023, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County approved a new map for electing county commissioners without complying with Colorado's redistricting statutes, arguing that as a home rule county, it was exempt from these requirements. Weld County residents, along with the League of Women Voters of Greeley and the Latino Coalition of Weld County, sued the Board, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the use of the new map.The Weld County District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and enjoining the Board from using the new map. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing, the redistricting statutes applied to Weld County, and the Board had violated these statutes. The Board appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the plaintiffs petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for certiorari review, which was granted.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the redistricting statutes provide a private right of action and that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The court further held that home rule counties must comply with the redistricting statutes, as these statutes impose mandatory functions rather than structural requirements. The court reversed the district court's allowance for the Board to use the 2015 map and ordered the Board to draw and approve a new map in compliance with the redistricting statutes in time for the 2026 county commissioner election. View "League of Women Voters of Greeley v. The Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Weld" on Justia Law

Kenneth Brown filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) alleging that the in-person absentee voting procedures in Racine during the August 2022 primary election violated the law. Brown observed voting at City Hall and a local mall and believed the procedures were unlawful. WEC found no probable cause of a violation and declined to take action. Brown then appealed WEC’s decision to the Racine County Circuit Court.The circuit court determined that Brown had standing to bring the action, as the alleged invalid voting procedures impacted his right to vote. The court partially ruled in Brown’s favor, concluding that the Racine City Clerk’s choice of alternate voting sites violated statutory requirements and that the use of a mobile election unit was unlawful. WEC sought to appeal this decision, and the case was brought before the Wisconsin Supreme Court via a bypass petition.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether Brown had standing to seek judicial review of WEC’s decision. The court interpreted Wisconsin Statute § 5.06(8), which allows for appeals from WEC’s decisions, and determined that to be “aggrieved” by a decision, an individual must suffer an injury to a legally recognized interest. The court found that Brown did not demonstrate any personal injury resulting from WEC’s decision, as he did not allege that the decision made it more difficult for him to vote or affected him personally.The court held that Brown was not “aggrieved” within the meaning of the statute and therefore did not have standing to seek judicial review. Consequently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Brown’s complaint. View "Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law