Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the San Diego Public Library Foundation and the San Diego Parks Foundation (appellants) who began circulating a petition in July 2022 for the "Libraries and Parks Improvement Act" initiative to secure funding for libraries and parks in San Diego. They submitted over 111,000 signatures to the San Diego City Clerk for verification. The City Clerk forwarded the petition to the San Diego County Registrar of Voters for signature verification. The Registrar used a random sample to verify the signatures and determined that the initiative did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.The Superior Court of San Diego County found that the City Clerk used the correct election date (November 2020) to determine the number of required signatures. The court also found that the appellants needed an additional 185 valid signatures to trigger a full count. The court did not address all of the appellants' contentions because it concluded that the appellants could not achieve the required number of valid signatures.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the City Clerk correctly used the general election preceding the filing of the notice of intent to circulate the initiative petition to determine the required number of signatures. However, the court found that the Registrar acted arbitrarily in rejecting signatures due to misspellings, illegibility, or nonstandard abbreviations when the voter registration record could be located and the identity of the signer could be verified. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "San Diego Public Library Foundation v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Thomas G. Dean, representing himself, appealed the dismissal of his challenge to the qualifications of candidates in the 2022 partisan election for the office of Georgia Labor Commissioner. Dean, who lost the Democratic primary election, filed a petition for declaratory judgment against the State of Georgia, seeking to be declared the sole qualified candidate. He did not challenge the qualifications of the other candidates through the pre-election administrative process and failed to file an affidavit verifying his petition as required for post-election contests.The trial court dismissed Dean's petition for two reasons: his failure to challenge the other candidates' qualifications before the primary within the required timeframe and his failure to verify his petition by affidavit within five days of certification of the primary election results. Dean appealed to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia due to its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election contests.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed Dean's appeal, emphasizing the duty of litigants in election contests to expedite resolution before an election is held. The court noted that Dean did not make every effort to have his claims decided before the election, including failing to file a pre-election challenge and seeking to expedite the proceeding and stay the primary election. The court held that the principles requiring dismissal of election contests on prudential grounds apply equally to declaratory judgment suits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without addressing the merits of Dean's claims. View "DEAN v. STATE OF GEORGIA" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe, and three individual Native American voters filed a lawsuit against North Dakota’s Secretary of State. They claimed that the state's 2021 redistricting plan diluted Native American voting strength, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits vote dilution, which can occur through packing a minority group into one district or dividing them among several districts to weaken their voting power.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied the Secretary's motion to dismiss, which argued that private plaintiffs lacked a cause of action under Section 2 and could not use § 1983 to enforce it. The district court allowed the case to proceed, and after a bench trial, it ruled that the 2021 redistricting map violated Section 2. The court permanently enjoined the Secretary from using the map and ordered the North Dakota Legislative Assembly to adopt a remedial map. When the Assembly failed to do so, the court imposed the plaintiffs' proposed map.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The main issue was whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 of the VRA through § 1983. The court held that Section 2 does not unambiguously confer an individual right enforceable under § 1983. The court emphasized that Section 2 focuses on the entities regulated (states and political subdivisions) rather than unambiguously creating individual rights. Consequently, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it for lack of a cause of action. View "Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe" on Justia Law

In the fall of 2021, the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa (LULAC) filed a petition against the Iowa Secretary of State, the Iowa Voter Registration Commission, and several county auditors. LULAC challenged a 2008 permanent injunction from a different case, which prohibited the dissemination of voter registration forms in languages other than English under the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act. LULAC argued that the injunction was wrongly decided and sought its dissolution, along with a declaration that the Act allowed for non-English voting materials.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted LULAC’s requests, dissolving the King injunction and issuing a declaratory judgment that the Act did not apply to voting materials. The court held that voting materials were necessary to secure the right to vote and thus fell within the rights exception of the Act.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the issue of standing. The court concluded that LULAC lacked standing to challenge the King injunction and the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the law. The court reasoned that LULAC’s general interest in the proper interpretation and enforcement of the law, as well as its resource diversion in response to the injunction, did not constitute a legally cognizable injury. The court emphasized that standing requires a specific personal or legal injury, which LULAC failed to demonstrate. Consequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for dismissal. View "League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Iowa Secretary of State" on Justia Law

The case involves the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filing a two-count complaint against Jocelyn Benson, the Michigan Secretary of State, alleging non-compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). PILF claimed that Michigan failed to conduct proper maintenance of voter registration lists by not removing deceased registrants and did not allow inspection of public records related to voter rolls. PILF's requests for records and subsequent correspondence with the Secretary of State's office did not yield the desired information, leading to the lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Secretary Benson. The court found that Michigan's efforts to maintain voter registration lists, including using state and federal death records and collaborating with the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), constituted a reasonable effort under the NVRA. The court also found that PILF's claim regarding the failure to allow inspection of records was moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, agreeing that Michigan's program for removing deceased registrants was reasonable under the NVRA. The court noted that the NVRA requires a reasonable effort, not a perfect one, and that Michigan's multi-layered approach met this standard. The court also found that PILF lacked standing to assert its claim regarding the inspection of records, as it failed to demonstrate concrete downstream consequences from the alleged NVRA violation.In conclusion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Michigan's efforts to maintain accurate voter registration lists were reasonable and that PILF did not have standing to pursue its claim regarding the inspection of records. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Benson" on Justia Law

Registered Missouri voters Raymond McCarty, Daniel Shaul, Russell Lahl, and Michael Hastings, along with several nonprofit organizations, contested the results of the November 2024 election approving Proposition A. They argued that the summary statement and fiscal note summary for Proposition A were misleading, casting doubt on the election's fairness and validity. Proposition A proposed increasing the minimum wage, adjusting it based on the Consumer Price Index, requiring paid sick leave, and exempting certain entities.The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the case. The lower courts had not previously reviewed this specific election contest. The plaintiffs brought the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over election contests under chapter 115 of the Missouri statutes.The Missouri Supreme Court held that the summary statement and fiscal note summary for Proposition A were not misleading or materially inaccurate. The court found that the summary statement fairly and impartially summarized the central features of Proposition A, and the fiscal note summary adhered to statutory requirements by focusing on governmental costs. The court concluded that there was no election irregularity of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the election's validity. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that Proposition A violated the "single subject" and "clear title" requirements of the Missouri Constitution, citing a lack of original jurisdiction over these claims. The court upheld the election results, affirming the validity of Proposition A. View "McCarty v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) requested records from the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). PILF sought documents related to a "glitch" in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's system that allowed ineligible persons to register to vote. The Secretary denied the request, leading PILF to file a lawsuit claiming an informational injury due to the denial of access to the records.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania initially dismissed the suit for lack of statutory notice but found that PILF had standing based on an informational injury. After PILF provided the required notice and refiled the suit, the District Court granted and denied parts of both parties' summary judgment motions, ruling that PILF was entitled to some records but not others. The District Court did not reassess PILF's standing in light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that PILF lacked standing. The court held that PILF did not demonstrate a concrete harm or adverse effects from the denial of information, as required by TransUnion. The court emphasized that PILF's inability to study and analyze the records or produce educational materials did not constitute a concrete injury related to the NVRA's purpose of increasing voter participation. Consequently, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's orders and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. View "The Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Michael Huff filed nomination petitions to run as a Democratic candidate for two judicial offices in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. Julian Domanico objected, arguing that Huff did not meet the constitutional residency requirement because he lived with his family in Montgomery County, not in the First Judicial District. Huff claimed his residence was a property in Philadelphia, where he had moved in May 2024, while his wife and children continued to live in Montgomery County.The Commonwealth Court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Huff's family resided in Montgomery County. The court applied Section 704(d) of the Pennsylvania Election Code, which presumes a married person's residence is where their family lives unless the couple is separated. Since Huff and his wife were not separated, the court concluded that Huff's domicile was in Montgomery County and ordered his name removed from the ballot.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires judges to reside in their respective districts for at least one year before election. The court emphasized that residency for constitutional eligibility is determined by domicile, which involves physical presence and intent to remain. The court found that Section 704 of the Election Code, which applies to voter registration, should not be used as a bright-line rule for determining a candidate's eligibility to run for office.The Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth Court's decision, ruling that the lower court improperly relied solely on Section 704(d) without considering the totality of the circumstances to determine Huff's domicile. The case was remanded for reconsideration based on the traditional concept of domicile, which includes assessing physical presence and intent to remain. View "In re Nomination of Huff" on Justia Law

The case involves the Arizona Abortion Access Act Initiative I-05-2024, which appeared on the November 5, 2024, general election ballot. The Legislative Council prepared an analysis of the initiative, which included a description of existing state law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, except in medical emergencies. The analysis used the term "unborn human being" to describe the existing law, which the initiative's proponents argued was not impartial and requested the term "fetus" be used instead.The Superior Court in Maricopa County ruled in favor of the initiative's proponents, finding that the term "unborn human being" was emotionally and partisanly charged, and ordered the Council to replace it with a neutral term. The Council members appealed the decision, arguing that the analysis was impartial and complied with statutory requirements.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's ruling. The Court held that the analysis substantially complied with the statutory requirement for impartiality by accurately describing existing law using the precise terminology found in the statute. The Court emphasized that the term "unborn human being" is used in the existing law and that the analysis provided necessary background information to voters. The Court concluded that the analysis was impartial and did not advocate for or against the initiative. The request for attorney fees and costs by the initiative's proponents was denied. View "ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS v MONTENEGRO" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Beth Cummings and Dena Burnham Johnson, filed a petition to annul or void an election that provided additional funds for the Great Falls Public Library. They alleged discrepancies in the election process, including a mathematical error in the ballot and a lack of clear information provided to voters. The election, held in June 2023, resulted in the approval of a mill levy increase to support the library.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Montana dismissed the plaintiffs' petition under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally cognizable claim. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations did not demonstrate a violation of their constitutional rights to suffrage or due process. The court also noted that the mathematical error on the ballot was minor and did not mislead voters to the extent that it would invalidate the election results. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiffs' claims of election law violations were not applicable to the mill levy election.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs' right of suffrage was not violated, as they were not prevented from voting and were not misled by the ballot language. The court also concluded that the due process claim was unfounded, as the election process and materials provided sufficient information to voters. Furthermore, the court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs' claims under state election laws were not relevant to the mill levy election.The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their petition, finding that the proposed amendments would be futile and would cause substantial prejudice to the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' additional legal arguments did not present a valid controversy and that the defendants had already expended significant resources in the case. View "Cummings v. Kelly" on Justia Law