Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Seven petitions were filed with the Lucas County Board of Elections to recall the mayor and six members of the Maumee city council under R.C. 705.92. The board found the petitions valid and certified the recall questions for a special primary election. The City of Maumee and a citizen, Glenn Rambo, protested, arguing that the city’s charter does not provide for recall, R.C. 705.92 does not apply to the city, and the petitions did not comply with the statute. The board denied the protests.The relators sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the board from placing the recall questions on the ballot and a writ of mandamus to order the board to grant their protests. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court found that Maumee’s charter allows for the removal of elected officials as provided by the Constitution or laws of Ohio, but R.C. 705.92 does not apply to Maumee because it was not adopted under R.C. 705.03. The court held that the board erred in deeming R.C. 705.92 applicable to Maumee.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted the writ of prohibition, preventing the board from placing the recall questions on the ballot, and denied the writ of mandamus as moot. The court concluded that the recall procedure in R.C. 705.92 is not generally applicable to municipalities and can only be adopted as part of a statutory plan of government under R.C. 705.03, which Maumee did not do. View "State ex rel. Maumee v. Lucas County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Florida’s 2022 congressional districting plan. The plaintiffs, consisting of civic organizations and individual voters, argue that the plan violates the Florida Constitution's Fair Districts Amendment (FDA) by failing to retain a two-hundred-mile-long congressional district that previously enabled black voters in North Florida to elect representatives of their choice. The plaintiffs claim that the new plan diminishes this ability, contrary to the FDA's Non-Diminishment Clause.The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the Enacted Plan unconstitutional under the FDA, enjoining its use, and ordering the Legislature to adopt a remedial map. The First District Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a sufficiently compact minority community in North Florida to merit protection under the FDA. The appellate court also questioned the binding nature of the Florida Supreme Court’s precedents on the Non-Diminishment Clause.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and upheld the Enacted Plan. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving the possibility of drawing a North Florida district that complies with both the Non-Diminishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The court emphasized that compliance with the Equal Protection Clause is a superior obligation and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a non-diminishing district could be drawn without subordinating traditional race-neutral districting principles to racial considerations. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeal, though not its reasoning. View "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, Inc. v. Secretary, Florida Department of State" on Justia Law

In June 2023, the Town Board of Thornapple, Wisconsin decided to stop using electronic voting machines and switched to paper ballots for elections. This change was implemented in the 2024 federal primary elections. The United States sued the Town and certain officials, alleging that they failed to provide at least one accessible voting system for individuals with disabilities, as required by section 301 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). The United States also sought and obtained a preliminary injunction from the district court, requiring the Town to provide a HAVA-compliant system in the November 2024 federal election.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted the preliminary injunction, rejecting the Town's arguments that paper ballots did not fall under HAVA's purview and that the government failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm. The court found that the Town's actions would likely deprive individuals with disabilities of the opportunity to vote independently and privately, as required by HAVA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Town's use of paper ballots constitutes a "voting system" under HAVA. The court found that the government demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm. The court concluded that the Town's actions would likely deprive individuals with disabilities of the opportunity to vote independently and privately, thus violating HAVA's requirements. The preliminary injunction was upheld, requiring the Town to provide an accessible voting system in the upcoming election. View "United States v. Town of Thornapple" on Justia Law

In 2023, Maine voters passed "An Act to Prohibit Campaign Spending by Foreign Governments" to prevent foreign governments and entities influenced by them from contributing to or influencing elections. The Act also requires media platforms to ensure they do not distribute communications that violate this prohibition, with violators facing civil and criminal penalties. Several companies and individuals, including Central Maine Power (CMP) and Versant Power, challenged the Act, claiming it violated the First Amendment. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the Act, and Maine appealed.The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Act was likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court held that the Act's prohibition on spending by entities with at least 5% foreign ownership was not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. It also found that the definition of "foreign government-influenced entity" was overly broad and likely to stifle domestic speech regardless of actual foreign influence. The court declined to sever the unconstitutional provisions from the rest of the Act, reserving the issue for later consideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the Act's 5% foreign ownership threshold was not narrowly tailored and that the definition of "foreign government-influenced entity" was overly broad. The court also found that the Act's restrictions on contributions and expenditures were likely unconstitutional. The court did not address the issue of severability, leaving it for the district court to decide. The court also did not find it necessary to discuss the preemption determination in affirming the injunction. View "Central Maine Power Co. v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices" on Justia Law

Alex Titcomb and four other registered Maine voters challenged the wording of a ballot question for citizen-initiated legislation that would amend Maine voting laws. They argued that the question did not meet statutory requirements to be understandable and not misleading to a reasonable voter. The proposed legislation included various changes to election laws, such as requiring photo ID for voting, ending ongoing absentee voting for seniors and people with disabilities, and other modifications.The Superior Court (Cumberland County) affirmed the Secretary of State’s decision on the wording of the ballot question. The court found that the language used in the question was understandable and not misleading. Titcomb appealed this decision, arguing that the question improperly singled out the effect on seniors and people with disabilities and used confusing terms.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and upheld the Superior Court’s judgment. The court concluded that the ballot question was not misleading and was understandable to a reasonable voter. The court noted that the language used in the question accurately reflected the proposed legislation and that the terms used were clear to an informed voter. The court also found that the length of the question, while longer than usual, was necessary to convey the various changes proposed in the legislation. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Titcomb v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

No Labels Party of Arizona (No Labels) is a political party that only seeks to run candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. During the 2024 election, five No Labels party members filed statements of interest to run for down-ballot positions. No Labels requested that the Arizona Secretary of State (the Secretary) disregard these filings, but the Secretary refused, citing Arizona law that mandates acceptance of candidate filings by eligible persons.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted No Labels a permanent injunction, finding that the Arizona law substantially burdened No Labels's First Amendment rights by forcing it to associate with candidates for offices it did not wish to pursue. The court concluded that Arizona's interests were minimal and did not outweigh the burden on No Labels's rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the Secretary's enforcement of Arizona's election law, which allowed eligible No Labels party members to be placed on the primary ballot, imposed at most a minimal burden on No Labels's associational rights. The court found that Arizona's interests in ensuring voter and candidate participation, avoiding voter confusion, and limiting opportunities for fraud and corruption outweighed any burden on No Labels. The court concluded that the Secretary's actions were narrowly tailored to advance these compelling state interests. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated the permanent injunction issued by the district court. View "No Labels Party of Arizona v. Fontes" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Douglass Mackey, was convicted of conspiring to injure citizens in the exercise of their right to vote in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. The conviction was based on three memes he posted or reposted on Twitter shortly before the 2016 presidential election, which falsely suggested that supporters of then-candidate Hillary Clinton could vote by text message.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Donnelly, J.) oversaw the trial, where a jury found Mackey guilty. Mackey appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knowingly agreed to join the charged conspiracy. The government presented evidence of Mackey's participation in several private Twitter message groups where members discussed strategies to influence the election, including the creation and distribution of misleading memes. However, Mackey was not a member of these groups during the critical period when the conspiracy was allegedly formed and discussed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mackey knowingly agreed to join the conspiracy. The court noted that while Mackey posted the misleading memes, there was no direct evidence that he viewed or participated in the relevant discussions within the private message groups. The court emphasized that mere association with individuals involved in an unlawful undertaking is not enough to prove knowing involvement in a conspiracy.The Second Circuit concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support Mackey's conviction and reversed the judgment of the district court. The case was remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal for Mackey. View "United States v. Mackey" on Justia Law

Appellants Benedict J. Frederick, III, Matthew W. Wyskiel, III, and Stacie Teal-Locust challenged the Baltimore City Board of Elections' decision to reject a proposed charter amendment petition sponsored by Renew Baltimore. The proposed amendment sought to cap Baltimore City's real property tax rate, decreasing it incrementally over seven years. The current tax rate is $2.248 per $100 of assessed value, and the amendment aimed to reduce it to $1.20 per $100 by fiscal year 2032.The Election Director for the City Board approved the petition format but did not assess its legality. Renew Baltimore submitted the petition with 23,542 signatures, exceeding the required 10,000. However, the Election Director later deemed the amendment deficient, citing a conflict with section 6-302(a) of the Tax-Property Article, which grants the Mayor and City Council the authority to set property tax rates. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City upheld this decision, ruling that the amendment was not proper charter material and violated section 6-302(a).The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The Court held that the proposed charter amendment was impermissible because it violated section 6-302(a) of the Tax-Property Article by allowing citizens to establish the tax rate, which is a power vested in the Mayor and City Council. Additionally, the Court noted that section 49 of Article II of the Baltimore City Charter prohibits voters from initiating legislation related to property taxation. Therefore, the proposed amendment could not be presented on the November 2024 general election ballot. View "Frederick v. Balt. City Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Three Alaska residents challenged the Division of Elections' process for certifying a ballot initiative for the November 2024 election. They claimed the Division violated regulations and statutes by allowing corrections to circulators’ certifications of petition booklets used to gather signatures. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Division and the initiative’s sponsors on this issue. After a trial on other issues, the court ordered the Division to reject some signatures and booklets but found enough valid signatures remained to keep the initiative on the ballot. The challengers appealed the summary judgment decision.The superior court ruled that Alaska Statute 15.45.130 allows corrections to circulators’ certifications after the petition is filed, as long as the corrections are made before the Division completes its signature-counting process. The court found that the statute’s language, legislative history, and intent support this interpretation, aiming to facilitate the initiative process and avoid disenfranchising voters due to technical errors.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that AS 15.45.130 permits corrections to certifications during the Division’s 60-day review period, even after the one-year signature-gathering deadline and the start of the legislative session. The court found that the statute’s plain language, legislative history, and purpose support allowing corrections to ensure voters’ signatures are counted. The court also determined that the Division’s regulations do not prohibit post-filing corrections and that the Division’s interpretation of its regulations was reasonable. Thus, the initiative remained on the ballot. View "Crow v. Beecher" on Justia Law

The case involves a contested Republican primary runoff election for the office of tax collector/assessor in Pearl River County, Mississippi. Jo Lynn Houston was initially certified as the winner by a margin of two votes over Sandy Kane Smith. Smith challenged the results, alleging that two illegal votes were cast by individuals who voted in both the Democratic primary and the Republican runoff, and that a miscounted vote in the Carriere 5 Precinct should have been counted for him.The Circuit Court of Pearl River County found that the two illegal votes and the miscounted vote warranted a special election in two precincts where the illegal votes were cast. The court ordered that the results of the special election be added to the adjusted totals, which would then determine the final outcome. Houston appealed the decision, arguing that Smith did not meet his burden of proving that the will of the electorate could not be ascertained.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The court held that Smith had met his burden of proving the existence of illegal votes and that the two-vote margin made it impossible to ascertain the will of the electorate. The court found that a special election was necessary to determine the true outcome. The court also dismissed Smith's cross-appeal, which raised additional factual issues and alleged a conflict of interest with a county election commissioner serving on the special tribunal.In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the order for a special election in the specified precincts and dismissed the cross-appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to vacate the original election certification and conduct a new election to resolve the contested results. View "Houston v. Smith" on Justia Law