Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

A group sought access to certain court forms used to notify election officials when a person under guardianship has been found incompetent to vote. These forms, known as Notice of Voting Eligibility (NVE) forms, contain personal information about the individual and details about the court’s finding of incompetency. The group submitted public records requests for completed NVE forms held by the Walworth County register in probate, seeking to identify individuals found incompetent to vote. The requests were denied, and the group filed a mandamus action to compel disclosure.The Walworth County Circuit Court denied the request, holding that NVE forms were confidential under Wisconsin law. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals initially reversed, but because of a prior, conflicting published appellate decision (Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Reynolds), the Wisconsin Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration. On remand, the Court of Appeals held it was bound by the Reynolds precedent and affirmed the circuit court’s denial.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case. It clarified the standard for mandamus actions in public records cases, holding that courts should focus solely on whether the requester has a legal right to the records, and not on other traditional mandamus elements. The court concluded that NVE forms are “court records pertinent to the finding of incompetency” and are therefore “closed” under Wisconsin Statute § 54.75, which protects the privacy of individuals in guardianship proceedings. As a result, the forms are exempt from disclosure under the public records law, the group has no legal right to access them, and the writ of mandamus must be denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord" on Justia Law

Following the 2020 presidential election, three individuals—Shawn Smith, Ashley Epp, and Holly Kasun—formed an unincorporated association called the United States Election Integrity Plan (USEIP) to investigate what they believed was widespread election fraud in Colorado. In 2021, USEIP organized volunteers to go door-to-door canvassing, asking voters questions about their voting history and, in some instances, about whom they voted for. The Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Colorado, and Mi Familia Vota (collectively, the Voter Organizations) filed suit against USEIP and its founders, alleging that these canvassing activities constituted voter intimidation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment for USEIP, holding that unincorporated associations could not be sued under the statutes invoked: Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The district court then held a bench trial against the individual defendants. After the plaintiffs presented their case, the district court granted judgment on partial findings for the individuals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), finding insufficient evidence that any defendant engaged in voter intimidation. The court denied the defendants’ subsequent motion for attorney’s fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of USEIP, holding that unincorporated associations can be sued under both Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and § 1985. The appellate court found that the district court’s exclusion of USEIP significantly narrowed the scope of relevant evidence at trial, affecting the plaintiffs’ substantial rights. The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial against all defendants. The related appeal regarding attorney’s fees was dismissed as moot. View "Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP v. Smith" on Justia Law

In this case, the City of Hammond and three individual voters challenged Indiana’s use of the “Missouri Plan”—a system in which the governor appoints superior court judges from a list of nominees vetted by a nonpartisan commission, followed by periodic retention elections—in Lake County. They argued that, unlike most other Indiana counties where superior court judges are chosen in open elections, the Missouri Plan in Lake County gives minority voters, who make up over 40% of the voting-age population there, less opportunity than white voters elsewhere in the state to select judges of their choice. Plaintiffs relied on demographic disparities and asserted that the system violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, entered summary judgment for the defendants. The district court found that Seventh Circuit precedent, specifically Quinn v. Illinois, foreclosed the plaintiffs’ claim, holding that Section 2 does not require any particular office to be filled by election rather than appointment. The district judge also noted contrary circuit precedent in Bradley v. Work, which addressed similar facts, but concluded that Quinn was controlling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court concluded that, under the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Louisiana v. Callais, Section 2 liability attaches only where circumstances strongly suggest intentional discrimination. The appellate court found no evidence that Indiana’s use of the Missouri Plan in Lake County was motivated by racial discrimination, as the change was prompted by concerns over partisanship and inefficiency in the courts rather than race. The court thus held that Section 2 could not impose liability under these facts and affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants. View "City of Hammond v Lake County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

A group of candidates and political party committees, including then-Senate candidate JD Vance and various Republican campaign committees, challenged federal limits on coordinated campaign expenditures by political parties under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). These limits restrict the amount a party can spend in direct coordination with a candidate’s campaign. Plaintiffs argued that the restrictions violate the First Amendment, especially given modern developments in campaign finance law and enforcement tools such as earmarking and disclosure requirements. JD Vance maintained standing to challenge the law, as he had an active Statement of Candidacy and a campaign committee, despite later becoming Vice President.The case was first reviewed by the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld FECA’s coordinated-expenditure limits. The Sixth Circuit relied primarily on the Supreme Court’s 2001 precedent, Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II), which had previously sustained these limits against First Amendment challenges. However, several Sixth Circuit judges questioned whether Colorado II remained good law in light of more recent Supreme Court decisions, including McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate.The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and ultimately reversed the Sixth Circuit. The Court held that FECA’s limits on political-party coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment. Applying rigorous scrutiny, the Court determined that the limits are not necessary, narrowly tailored, or proportionate to the government’s interest in preventing circumvention of candidate contribution limits, especially given the effectiveness of existing earmarking rules and disclosure laws. The Court explicitly overruled Colorado II, concluding that subsequent precedents have rendered it obsolete. The judgment of the Sixth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law

During the 2020 election cycle, an organization formed with the stated mission of advocating for certain economic and governmental policies in Colorado. The group, overseen by a sole board member and a contractor, spent over $17 million that year, with around $4 million (about 23.4% of its expenditures) directed at supporting or opposing three statewide ballot initiatives. Its activities included funding signature-gathering efforts and contributing to other issue committees involved in those propositions. Members of the public filed a complaint alleging the organization was required to register and disclose as an “issue committee” under Colorado’s campaign finance laws, which apply to groups with a major purpose of supporting or opposing ballot issues.The Elections Division initially dismissed the complaint, interpreting the law to require a major purpose focused on a specific ballot measure, not ballot initiatives generally. The Deputy Secretary of State disagreed, reinstated the proceedings, and, after an administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found the organization had a major purpose of ballot issue advocacy. A Final Agency Order imposed a fine and mandated disclosure. On appeal, the district court reversed, finding the law did not support aggregating the organization’s activities across multiple initiatives. The Colorado Court of Appeals then reversed again, holding that the law permitted aggregation and that the organization’s activities met the major purpose standard, also rejecting the organization’s First Amendment arguments.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case, interpreting the constitutional definition of “issue committee.” The court held that determining whether an organization has a major purpose of ballot issue advocacy requires a holistic, fact-specific evaluation of its creation, spending, and activities, considering aggregate activity across multiple ballot issues. Applying this standard, the court found that, although the organization was active in ballot issue advocacy, its spending on such activities (less than a quarter of its overall expenditures) did not rise to the level of a major purpose. The Supreme Court of Colorado reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Unite for Colo. v. Colo. Dep't of State" on Justia Law

Two proposed statewide initiatives in Colorado sought to alter the process and timing of congressional redistricting and to replace the existing congressional district map for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles. Both initiatives were similar in structure and aimed to temporarily allow mid-decade redistricting by amending the state constitution to enable new congressional maps for two election cycles, with authority returning to the independent redistricting commission after the 2030 federal census. The initiatives also included detailed statutory language setting forth the new temporary map to be used, with one initiative designed to favor Democratic candidates and the other designed to favor Republican candidates, according to the briefing.After the proponents submitted final versions of their initiatives, the Title Board, a state body responsible for setting the ballot title and submission clause, held hearings and set titles for each measure. Motions for rehearing alleging violations of the single subject and clear title requirements were denied by the Title Board. Petitioners then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, invoking its jurisdiction to review Title Board determinations under state law.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the actions of the Title Board under a deferential standard, overturning its findings only in a clear case. Upon examining the initiatives, the court concluded that both measures violated the single subject requirement of the Colorado Constitution and applicable statutes. The court held that temporarily allowing mid-decade redistricting and adopting specific new congressional maps for two election cycles were distinct and separate subjects, not necessarily or properly connected. Because the initiatives combined these separate subjects, they were susceptible to log rolling and could mislead voters. The court reversed the actions of the Title Board, ordered the titles stricken, and directed that the measures be returned to their proponents. View "Williams v. Nathan" on Justia Law

Arizona voters adopted a statute requiring organizations engaging in independent election-related media spending to disclose the identities of major donors and the original sources of funds used for such communications. The law includes an opt-out provision allowing donors to prevent their contributions from being used for campaign media spending, and imposes thresholds for disclosure and reporting. Plaintiffs, consisting of two nonprofit organizations and two anonymous individuals who donate to such organizations, challenged the law’s constitutionality, alleging it violated their rights to free speech and privacy under the Arizona Constitution.The Superior Court for Maricopa County dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a legally valid claim, but permitted an amended complaint to add an as-applied challenge. After defendants again moved to dismiss, the court granted the motion, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that the statute was unconstitutional on its face or as applied.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that the statute is facially unconstitutional under either the Speak Freely Clause or the Private Affairs Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The court developed an Arizona-specific standard for evaluating compelled disclosure laws, requiring that such laws meaningfully further election integrity or transparency and not unreasonably burden protected expression. The court found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the statute burdens protected expression in a substantial number of its applications.However, the Supreme Court of Arizona determined that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an as-applied challenge under the Speak Freely Clause, based on specific allegations of threats and harassment related to campaign media spending. The court affirmed the lower courts’ dismissal of all facial and privacy claims, reversed the dismissal of the as-applied free speech claim, and remanded that claim for further proceedings. View "CENTER FOR AZ v AZ SECRETARY OF STATE" on Justia Law

Mississippi allows certain residents, including college students away from home and senior citizens, to vote in federal elections by absentee ballot. These absentee ballots must be postmarked on or before election day and received by the registrar no more than five business days after the election. In 2024, several Republican-affiliated organizations and individuals, as well as the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, sued the Mississippi Secretary of State and other election officials. They argued that federal election-day statutes require both the casting and receipt of ballots to occur by election day, thereby preempting Mississippi’s law that permits counting absentee ballots received after election day.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi consolidated the cases and granted summary judgment in favor of Mississippi, finding no conflict between federal statute and state law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the federal election-day statutes preempt Mississippi’s law, and required ballots to be received by election day. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc, prompting the defendants to seek review by the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later. The Court clarified that the federal statutes set the deadline for when votes must be cast, not when they must be received, and that state law governs ballot receipt deadlines. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the statutes do not preempt Mississippi’s practice of counting properly postmarked but late-arriving absentee ballots. View "Watson v. Republican National Committee" on Justia Law

Two U.S. citizens who reside and vote in Burlington challenged a city charter amendment that allows noncitizens to vote in school board and school budget elections. The amendment, approved by the Legislature, permits noncitizens who are legal residents of the United States, live in Burlington, and take the Voter’s Oath to participate in these elections, but does not grant them the right to vote in state or federal elections. The plaintiffs argued that, although school elections appear local, they are actually statewide in nature because Burlington’s education budget is funded through the State Education Fund and these votes impact state finances and the interests of Vermonters statewide.The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that school elections are local in nature, focusing on issues such as selecting school board members and approving the school budget, and concluded that the noncitizen-voting provision did not implicate the Vermont Constitution’s voter-eligibility requirements for statewide elections.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Court held that the distinction between local and statewide elections depends on which level of government has authority over the election matter. If a question has been lawfully delegated to local government, the election is local; if not, it is statewide. The Court found that Vermont law delegates authority over school board and budget elections to localities. Although education is a matter of statewide concern, the State may constitutionally delegate decision-making over local school budgets to local voters. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the delegation was unlawful or that school elections are statewide under the Vermont Constitution.Accordingly, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that Burlington school elections are local and the charter amendment allowing noncitizen voting in those elections does not violate the Constitution’s voter-eligibility requirements for statewide elections. View "Morin v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

The case concerned a request from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for Nebraska’s statewide voter registration list, including sensitive personal information. Before the Secretary of State released the list, a membership organization and a registered voter filed suit, seeking to block or limit the disclosure, alleging that such release would violate Nebraska statutes restricting the dissemination and use of voter information. They argued that the DOJ was not entitled to all the requested data under federal law and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.In the District Court for Lancaster County, the Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had failed to join the DOJ as an indispensable party. The court agreed that the plaintiffs did not have standing, finding that they had not alleged a concrete injury and that concerns over possible future public disclosure or misuse were speculative. The court also found that Common Cause had not adequately pleaded associational standing. However, the court rejected the Secretary’s argument that the DOJ (or the U.S. Attorney General) was an indispensable party. The case was dismissed without prejudice on standing grounds, and the plaintiffs’ motions for a temporary injunction and summary judgment were denied.On appeal, while the matter was pending before the Nebraska Supreme Court, the Secretary released the voter list to the DOJ. The Nebraska Supreme Court determined that the case was moot because the list had already been disclosed, eliminating any live controversy or possibility of meaningful relief. The court declined to apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The main holding is that, due to the completed disclosure, the action no longer presented a justiciable issue. View "Common Cause v. Evnen" on Justia Law