Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Two individuals challenged the Puerto Rican electoral commission and its acting president, arguing that restrictions on early and absentee voting during the 2020 general election unlawfully burdened the right to vote for citizens over sixty, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2020, they brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief on constitutional grounds. The district court promptly issued a preliminary injunction, then a permanent injunction, allowing voters over sixty to vote early by mail. After judgment, the plaintiffs were awarded nearly $65,000 in attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.While the fee motion was pending, Puerto Rico’s government was in the process of debt restructuring under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). The restructuring plan, confirmed in January 2022, discharged claims against Puerto Rico arising before the plan’s effective date unless creditors filed proof of claim by a set deadline. Defendants argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico that the attorneys’ fees award was subject to the plan’s discharge and enjoined from collection, because the plaintiffs had not filed a timely administrative expense claim. The district court rejected this, finding the fee award unrelated to the bankruptcy case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that the claim for attorneys’ fees, though arising from post-petition litigation, related to events before the plan’s effective date. The court held that because the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the restructuring proceedings but did not file a timely proof of claim, their fee claim was discharged under the confirmed plan and enjoined from collection. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s order, holding that the discharge injunction applied to the attorneys’ fee award. View "Ocasio v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones" on Justia Law

A group of business and industry associations challenged the Montana Attorney General’s March 6, 2026 determination that Proposed Ballot Measure No. 10 was legally sufficient to proceed in the initiative process. Ballot Measure No. 10 sought to amend state law by defining “artificial persons” and excluding “political spending power” from the rights granted to such entities. The challengers argued that the measure was facially unconstitutional because it restricted political speech, was vague, and improperly conditioned benefits on the waiver of constitutional rights.The challenge was brought directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana under its original jurisdiction. The Attorney General had performed only a procedural review, declining to address the measure’s substantive constitutionality due to a prior order by the First Judicial District Court in Ellingson v. State, which had enjoined the statutory provision that would have allowed such substantive review. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to require the Attorney General to review the measure’s constitutionality and to reverse his finding of legal sufficiency.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General does not have authority to consider the substantive constitutionality of proposed ballot initiatives during legal sufficiency review under current law and precedent. The Court reaffirmed that pre-election constitutional challenges to initiatives are generally disfavored, as the people have a constitutional right to use the initiative process. Because Ballot Measure No. 10 had not yet qualified for the ballot, the Court declined to address the merits of the constitutional arguments, finding such review would be advisory. The Court denied and dismissed the petition, and also denied as moot motions to intervene and to file amicus briefs. View "Montana Mining Assn. v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

Get Loud Arkansas and other plaintiffs challenged an Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners rule that required all voter registration applications to have a handwritten or “wet” signature, excluding digital or electronic signatures. The controversy arose after Get Loud developed an online voter registration tool, which allowed applicants to sign digitally and resulted in a significant increase in voter registrations, particularly among young voters. Following publicity about the tool’s success, the Arkansas Secretary of State instructed county clerks to reject electronically signed applications. Despite an opinion by the Arkansas Attorney General affirming the legality of electronic signatures, the Board adopted a rule requiring wet signatures, which forced Get Loud to modify its operations, reduce the effectiveness of its registration efforts, and expend additional resources.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, arguing that the rule violated the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), which prohibits denying the right to vote based on immaterial errors or omissions on voter registration applications. The district court found that the rule likely violated federal law and granted a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the wet signature requirement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Get Loud had standing due to direct interference with its core activities. The court concluded that Arkansas’s rule was not material in determining voter qualifications, as election officials did not use signature type to assess eligibility and had previously accepted both wet and digital signatures without issue. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction, holding that enforcing the rule violated the Materiality Provision and that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs. View "Get Loud Arkansas v. Jester" on Justia Law

A candidate, John Calvin Dove, Jr., submitted a certificate of candidacy to run for the Democratic Party nomination for the Maryland House of Delegates in Legislative District 12B for the 2026 gubernatorial election. Gary Simmons challenged Dove’s qualifications, asserting that Dove was not a resident and did not maintain a place of abode in Legislative District 12B at the time he filed his candidacy certificate. Simmons further alleged that Dove had misrepresented his residency on his voter registration and his certificate of candidacy, arguing that these actions rendered Dove ineligible and his candidacy certificate invalid.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County scheduled a hearing on Simmons’s petition, but Dove moved to dismiss, arguing that the constitutional residency requirement only needed to be met six months before the general election, a date which had not yet arrived. The circuit court agreed with Dove, finding the challenge premature and dismissing Simmons’s petition with prejudice, without taking evidence on Dove’s residency or place of abode.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case. The court held that Simmons’s petition was not premature as to his claims under the Election Law Article, which require that a candidate be lawfully registered to vote and reside in the legislative district at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. The court found that such a challenge is ripe for adjudication at the time of filing. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing and a decision on the merits of Simmons’s challenge before set deadlines. The costs were assessed against Dove. View "Simmons v. Dove" on Justia Law

Several individuals and two organizations challenged a Missouri law enacted in 2022, House Bill No. 1878 (HB 1878), which amended the state’s voting requirements by mandating that voters present specific forms of photo identification or cast a provisional ballot under certain conditions. The organizations—the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Missouri—along with the individuals, claimed that these provisions unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote and violated equal protection guarantees.Their petition for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that none of the individual plaintiffs had shown an actual or threatened injury, as each had either successfully voted since the law’s enactment or their alleged difficulties were speculative. The court also determined that the organizations had not established standing, either through a diversion of resources or by identifying any specific member adversely affected by the law. Despite these findings, the circuit court proceeded to rule on the merits, concluding the law was constitutional.The Supreme Court of Missouri, which has exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving the validity of state statutes, reviewed the matter. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s determination that the appellants lacked standing—meaning none of the plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete, personal stake in the outcome. The Supreme Court held that, because there was no justiciable controversy before the court, the circuit court erred by reaching and deciding the merits of the constitutional claims. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment addressing the merits of the constitutional challenge. The case was thus resolved solely on the issue of standing. View "Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People vs. State" on Justia Law

In 2022, Missouri enacted new legislation that imposed several restrictions on activities related to voter registration and absentee ballot applications. The law prohibited the payment or compensation of individuals for soliciting voter registration applications unless they were government employees, required anyone who solicited more than ten voter registration applications to register with the state, and mandated that solicitors be at least eighteen years old and registered Missouri voters. Additionally, the law completely banned the solicitation of voters to obtain absentee ballot applications. These provisions affected organizations whose work involves encouraging and assisting individuals in registering to vote and informing them about absentee voting.The Circuit Court of Cole County reviewed a lawsuit brought by two civic organizations challenging these provisions as unconstitutional. The organizations argued the restrictions violated rights to free speech, association, and due process under the Missouri Constitution. The court issued a preliminary injunction, and after trial, permanently enjoined enforcement of the provisions, finding them to be facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech, overbroad, content- and viewpoint-based, and unconstitutionally vague. The court concluded the state had not shown the provisions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the statutory provisions imposed facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech protected by article I, section 8 of the Missouri Constitution. The Court found the provisions neither served a compelling state interest nor were narrowly tailored, and instead captured substantial amounts of protected speech unrelated to any compelling interest. The judgment declaring the provisions unconstitutional was affirmed. View "State vs. League of Women Voters" on Justia Law

After the results of the 2020 United States census were certified to the governor of Missouri in August 2021, the Missouri General Assembly established new congressional districts in 2022, as required by the state constitution. In September 2025, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (“HB 1”), which repealed the 2022 congressional districts and established new ones, even though no new census had been certified. The governor signed HB 1 into law. A group of plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of HB 1, arguing that article III, section 45 of the Missouri Constitution restricts the General Assembly to one redistricting following each decennial census certification.The Circuit Court of Cole County heard the case on stipulated facts and rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, finding that HB 1 was a valid exercise of the General Assembly’s legislative authority. The circuit court declared that article III, section 45 does not prevent the General Assembly from redistricting more frequently than once per decade.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the constitutional question de novo. The Court held that article III, section 45 obligates the General Assembly to redistrict upon certification of the decennial census but does not expressly prohibit mid-decade or more frequent congressional redistricting. The Court explained that, absent express constitutional restraint, the General Assembly’s legislative power remains plenary. The Court also found that the word “when” in section 45 acts as a trigger for mandatory redistricting but does not serve as a limitation on the legislature’s authority to redistrict at other times.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, upholding HB 1 as constitutional and concluding that article III, section 45 does not restrict the General Assembly’s power to conduct mid-decade congressional redistricting. View "Luther vs. Hoskins" on Justia Law

An individual submitted a written objection to a county board of elections, challenging a candidate’s petition to appear on the primary-election ballot for county commissioner. The objection claimed that one part-petition supporting the candidate’s declaration of candidacy contained elector signatures not properly witnessed by the circulator, as required by law. The individual provided a photograph as evidence and referenced relevant election statutes. The part-petition in question, however, accounted for only 17 signatures, and the candidate’s overall petition still contained more than the 50 valid signatures required for ballot qualification, regardless of the challenged signatures.After receiving the objection, the Clermont County Board of Elections did not schedule or conduct a protest hearing. At a special meeting, the board determined that the objection did not meet the statutory requirements for a valid protest under Ohio Revised Code sections 3501.39 and 3513.05. The board reasoned that even if all signatures on the challenged part-petition were invalidated, the candidate would still qualify for the ballot. The board informed the objector that a hearing was not warranted.The objector then filed a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio, seeking to compel the board to hold a protest hearing. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the objector failed to establish a clear legal right to a mandatory hearing or a corresponding legal duty for the board because the protest, on its face, could not have resulted in the candidate’s removal from the ballot. The court further concluded that granting mandamus would compel a vain act. The court denied the writ of mandamus, denied the board’s request for sanctions, and granted the board’s motion for leave to file amended evidence. View "State ex rel. Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

A candidate seeking the Republican Party nomination for U.S. Representative from the Sixth Ohio Congressional District submitted a petition with signatures from several counties, including Stark and Carroll. The Stark County Board of Elections, after reviewing the signatures and receiving certified determinations from other relevant county boards, initially validated one additional signature beyond those accepted by the Carroll County Board, enabling the candidate to meet the minimum requirement for ballot access. A protest was filed arguing the board lacked authority to revisit other counties’ signature determinations and that not enough valid signatures existed. At a protest hearing, both parties presented evidence about specific disputed signatures.The Stark County Board of Elections held a hearing on the protest, as required by Ohio law. At this stage, the board considered evidence regarding the validity of disputed signatures, including some that had previously been declared invalid by the Carroll County Board. The board found three additional signatures valid (including two from Carroll County), bringing the total valid signatures above the threshold. The board accordingly denied the protest and certified the candidate for the primary ballot.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court held that while the Stark County Board could not, during the initial precertification review, override other counties’ signature determinations, the board did have authority during a formal protest hearing to consider evidence and make its own determinations regarding the validity of any signatures, including those from other counties. The court found that the board did not abuse its discretion or clearly disregard applicable law in denying the protest and certifying the candidate. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the requested writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. Spencer v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

An individual submitted a candidate filing form to appear on the ballot for Douglas County sheriff in the May 2026 primary election. Alongside his filing, he provided a letter from the director of the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center certifying that he possessed an “inactive” Nebraska law enforcement officer certificate. His certificate had been active from 1984 to 2009 but was inactive at the time of filing. The Douglas County Republican Party objected to his candidacy, arguing that Nebraska law required a candidate to hold an “active” certificate. The objection was supported by a memorandum and legislative materials suggesting legislative intent to require active certification.The Douglas County election commissioner reviewed the objection and determined that the candidate did not meet the requirements to run for sheriff, based on the inactive status of his law enforcement certificate. The candidate then filed an emergency application for special proceedings with the Nebraska Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the commissioner’s decision and compel his placement on the ballot. The Republican Party intervened, asserting that legislative history and statutory context supported the requirement of an active certificate.The Supreme Court of Nebraska heard the case as a special, summary proceeding under state election law. The court held that the relevant statute required only that a candidate “possess a law enforcement officer certificate,” and made no distinction between active and inactive status. The court found the statutory text to be unambiguous and declined to consider legislative history or administrative regulations. Accordingly, the court concluded that possession of an inactive certificate satisfied the statutory qualifications for candidacy. The judgment ordered that the candidate’s name appear on the ballot for the sheriff’s office. View "Martinez v. Jensen" on Justia Law