Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Following the passage of Proposition 50, which revised congressional district maps in California, a community group in Riverside County alleged a discrepancy in the number of ballots counted versus ballots cast during the 2025 special election. Acting on the group’s report, the county sheriff’s department obtained search warrants from the Riverside County Superior Court and seized large quantities of ballots and election materials. The county registrar defended the official tally and explained the discrepancy at a public meeting. Despite the Attorney General’s request for a pause to review the investigation, the sheriff’s department advanced their search and began counting ballots, only halting after direct communication from the Attorney General.The Attorney General issued formal directives to the sheriff, instructing him to pause the investigation, preserve all seized materials, and provide case records for review. The sheriff initially did not respond, began counting ballots, then paused the count and secured the materials. Subsequent communications from the Attorney General reiterated these directives and requested records. After further seizures by the sheriff’s department, the Attorney General initiated litigation, seeking a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal, which denied relief on procedural grounds. The Attorney General then sought review in the Supreme Court of California.The Supreme Court of California held that the Attorney General, under the state Constitution and Government Code section 12560, possesses the authority to give binding directions to sheriffs regarding specific investigations when necessary to ensure uniform and adequate enforcement of state laws. The court concluded the directives issued in this case were within the Attorney General’s lawful authority and sufficiently specific. It granted writ relief, ordering the sheriff and department to comply with the Attorney General’s instructions to pause investigative actions, retain seized records (with certain exceptions), and provide requested materials. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. View "Bonta v. Bianco" on Justia Law

A group of Riverside County residents, having voted in the November 2025 special election on Proposition 50, challenged the actions of the county sheriff’s department. The sheriff, responding to claims by a community group of a significant discrepancy between unofficial poll worker ballot intake logs and the Registrar of Voters’ final certified count, obtained search warrants and seized approximately 650,000 voted ballots. The Registrar of Voters maintained any discrepancy was minimal and within normal bounds, and no party disputed that the alleged discrepancy could not have changed the election outcome.After the sheriff’s department seized and began examining the ballots, the voters filed a petition for a writ of mandate directly in the Supreme Court of California. They argued the sheriff’s actions violated the Elections Code’s strict rules regarding the custody of ballots and requested the court order the immediate return of the ballots to the Registrar. The Registrar did not oppose this relief, and both the Secretary of State and Attorney General supported the petitioners’ position. The sheriff argued his actions were lawful as part of a criminal investigation supported by search warrants.The Supreme Court of California held that the seizure and removal of the ballots from the Registrar’s custody was unlawful under Elections Code section 15551, subdivision (d). The Court explained that the Elections Code specifically requires that voted ballots remain in the custody of the elections official at all times and that this rule applies even during criminal investigations. The Court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the sheriff to return all packages containing voted ballots to the Registrar and to refrain from further handling of the ballots, but denied the request for additional relief regarding non-ballot election materials and chain-of-custody reporting. The Court’s order superseded the previously issued superior court search warrants to the extent of any conflict. View "Cervantes v. Bianco" on Justia Law

Two candidates for public office in the November 2026 Delaware general election challenged the constitutionality of the state’s permanent absentee voting statute. They argued that the statute unlawfully expanded absentee voting beyond the categories permitted by the Delaware Constitution and that the Department of Elections failed to adequately verify the continued eligibility of permanent absentee voters, thereby enabling ineligible individuals to vote by absentee ballot.Previously, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware considered cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent use of the permanent absentee voting process for the 2026 election. The Court of Chancery found that the statute did not expand the constitutionally enumerated categories of absentee voters but rather limited permanent absentee status to a subset of those groups. The court further held that the statute did not permit voting by those ineligible to vote absentee and that the Department’s procedures for maintaining the permanent absentee list, though not perfect, did not render every application of the statute unconstitutional. The Court of Chancery thus granted summary judgment to the defendants.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the decision of the Court of Chancery. The Supreme Court held that the permanent absentee voting statute neither expanded absentee voting eligibility beyond the categories set by the Delaware Constitution nor permitted ineligible individuals to vote by absentee ballot. The Court also held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the high burden required for a facial constitutional challenge, as the statute could be applied constitutionally. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the statute. View "Hocker v. Albence" on Justia Law

A petitioner challenged the outcome of a primary election for the Republican nominee for State Senator, District 20, following a tie between two candidates. A tie-breaker was held using the lau hala basket method, resulting in one candidate being selected as the winner. The petitioner sought to invalidate this result, arguing that the tie-breaker required formal rule-making and that a two-vote underage in the district could have affected the election outcome. The underage stemmed from two voters in District 20 who received ballots for a different district, depriving them of the opportunity to vote in their own Senate race.After the tie-breaker, the petitioner did not file an election contest within the statutory deadline. Another individual, however, did file a timely primary election contest, and evidence from that proceeding established the underage and the timeline of when overage/underage reports were made available. The record showed that while some information about ballot errors was accessible before the deadline, the petitioner had not requested it or acted in time. The lower court, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i, considered previous case law and statutory requirements regarding election contests and the reporting of ballot discrepancies.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that extraordinary writ relief is unavailable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy—specifically, a primary election contest—which was not pursued within the required timeframe. The court also clarified that existing statutes governing reporting of ballot overages and underages are ambiguous and suggested that legislative amendments may be necessary. The court declined to grant relief on grounds of extraordinary public importance due to time constraints and statutory deadlines for ballot transmission. View "Fevella v. Nago" on Justia Law

In a recent primary election for State Representative in Hawaii’s District 43, the two Republican candidates, Sheila Medeiros and Kanani Souza, each received 842 votes, resulting in a tie. Under Hawaii law, such ties are resolved “by lot.” The Chief Election Officer conducted a public drawing using plastic capsules containing each candidate’s name, drawn from a basket, and Medeiros’ name was selected, making her the nominee. However, subsequent review revealed that two ballots from voters registered in a different district (District 40) were mistakenly issued and counted in District 43. Records do not indicate how these ballots were voted or whether they affected the tied race’s outcome, but in a tie, even a single improper ballot could be decisive.Following the election, Souza contested the result, arguing that the overage of two ballots from outside the district made the outcome unreliable, and that the method for breaking the tie was not properly established by rule. The Office of Elections and county officials acknowledged the ballot error but could not clarify its effect on the result. The Hawaii Supreme Court, following statutory procedures, reviewed the evidence and heard testimony from relevant officials.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii held that the presence of two ballots from outside District 43 in a tied race undermined the reliability of the result, and that the burden was on election officials—not the challenger—to show these ballots were lawfully cast. The Court also held that the tie-breaking method used by the Chief Election Officer constituted an unpromulgated rule, making the selection invalid. The Court concluded that no candidate was validly nominated and ordered that the primary be completed by a new vote, returning the choice to the voters. View "Souza v. Nago " on Justia Law

In this case, two candidates competed in the Nebraska Democratic Party’s 2026 U.S. Senate primary election; after the winner, Cindy Burbank, withdrew from the race, the runner-up, William Forbes, sued the party. Forbes argued that Nebraska law required the Democratic Party to nominate a replacement candidate for the general election ballot. He supported his claim by citing statutory language and asserted that, as a longtime registered Democratic voter, he would be deprived of the opportunity to support a Democratic nominee if the party did not name a replacement.The District Court for Lancaster County reviewed Forbes’ claims after expedited proceedings. The court first addressed whether Forbes had standing, finding that his status as a party voter provided a sufficient stake to pursue the lawsuit. On the merits, the district court rejected Forbes’ interpretation of the relevant Nebraska statutes, concluding that while the statutes set forth a process for replacing withdrawn candidates, they did not obligate political parties to do so. The court denied Forbes’ request for a temporary injunction and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Nebraska Democratic Party.The Nebraska Supreme Court, upon bypass appeal, independently reviewed the district court’s findings. It affirmed that Forbes had standing. On the statutory interpretation, the court held that Nebraska law gives political parties discretion whether to nominate a replacement candidate after a withdrawal; the statutes do not create a mandatory obligation. The court reasoned that harmonizing the statutory language most naturally allows parties to choose whether to fill a vacancy, and if so, mandates the process to follow. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that Forbes’ claim lacked merit. View "Forbes v. Nebraska Democratic Party" on Justia Law

Sponsors of a ballot initiative in Nebraska sought to have their proposed constitutional amendment, which would protect the powers of initiative and referendum, placed on the November 2026 general election ballot. The initiative aimed to require a four-fifths vote of the Legislature to amend, repeal, or impair laws enacted by initiative after November 2, 2004, and to similarly restrict the Legislature’s authority over laws affecting the initiative and referendum process itself. It also imposed a requirement that any laws facilitating or safeguarding the process advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means and prohibited legislative acts that would condition, restrict, burden, or impair these reserved powers.After the sponsors collected sufficient signatures, the Nebraska Secretary of State reviewed the measure. Following an objection by a current and a former state senator, the Secretary determined that the initiative violated Nebraska’s constitutional single subject rule and announced that he would not place it on the ballot.The sponsors filed an emergency application for a writ of mandamus directly with the Nebraska Supreme Court, asking the court to compel the Secretary to certify the initiative for the ballot. The Secretary argued that he was obligated to withhold ballot placement because the initiative contained more than one subject, contrary to the Nebraska Constitution. The Nebraska Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction, reviewed the matter de novo as a question of law.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the proposed initiative violated the single subject rule because it addressed at least two distinct subjects: limiting legislative power over both the initiative process and the substance of laws enacted by initiative. The court concluded that these subjects were not naturally and necessarily connected. Accordingly, the court denied the writ of mandamus and dissolved its alternative writ, holding that the Secretary had no duty to place the initiative on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Evnen" on Justia Law

A dispute arose regarding the statements to be included on the November 3, 2026, Idaho general election ballot describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote on Proposition One, the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act. After qualifying for the ballot, Idahoans United for Women and Families objected to the ballot statements jointly prepared by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, arguing they mischaracterized both the initiative and existing law, and failed to clearly and concisely convey the effect of each vote as required by Idaho Code section 34-1810(1)(b). The challenged statements had already been distributed for printing and to county clerks, prompting Idahoans United to seek expedited judicial relief.Previously, in Idahoans United for Women & Families v. Labrador (Idahoans United I), the Idaho Supreme Court reviewed related ballot materials for the same initiative, directing revisions to the short ballot title and fiscal impact statement, and later approving the revised materials. After the initiative qualified for the ballot, Idahoans United objected to the Yes/No Effect Statements, but Respondents declined to revise them. Unable to resolve the dispute, Idahoans United filed an original action in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and granted writs of prohibition and mandamus, holding that the Yes/No Effect Statements failed to substantially comply with section 34-1810(1)(b) because they did not accurately and concisely convey the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote. The court prohibited use of the challenged statements and directed Respondents to prepare revised statements. Upon review, the court found the revised statements substantially complied with statutory requirements and allowed them to appear on the ballot. The request for a writ of certiorari was denied as duplicative, and no party was awarded costs or attorney fees. View "Idahoans United v. McGrane/Labrador" on Justia Law

In a Republican primary for State Representative in Hawaii’s District 43, two candidates, Sheila Medeiros and Kanani Souza, each received 842 votes, resulting in a tie. No candidates from other parties or nonpartisans filed for the seat. Hawaii law directs that a tie be settled “by lot.” The Chief Election Officer conducted a tie-breaker by drawing names from plastic capsules placed in a basket, and Medeiros was selected. However, election records indicated that two ballots from District 40 voters were mistakenly cast in District 43, creating an overage that could potentially affect the outcome in such a close race.Following the tie-breaker and announcement of Medeiros as the winner, Souza sought records to clarify the overage. The Office of Elections and the City’s Elections Administrator eventually confirmed that the two ballots were issued in error to District 40 voters, but the record could not show how those ballots were marked or whether they affected the race. Souza filed an election contest in the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, alleging procedural violations and challenging the validity of the tie-breaker and the election outcome.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii found that the two extra ballots, whose votes could not be traced, rendered the result unreliable and that the improvised tie-breaker method was a rule adopted without proper rulemaking procedures, making it invalid. The court held that no candidate was validly nominated and, pursuant to its remedial authority, ordered a new election to complete the primary during the general election. The winner of this election would be deemed elected under the state constitution and take office on general election day. The court thus vacated the prior selection and returned the decision to the voters. View "Souza v. Nago" on Justia Law

A citizens’ group challenged the official ballot statements prepared by the Idaho Secretary of State and Attorney General for the 2026 general election, which would accompany Proposition One, the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act. The group argued that the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote were unclear, misleading, and exceeded the statutory authority given to the officials, as they characterized both the proposed law and existing Idaho law rather than simply stating the effect of each vote.Previously, the Idaho Supreme Court had considered similar issues regarding other ballot materials for the same initiative in Idahoans United for Women & Families v. Labrador, 175 Idaho 708, 570 P.3d 1137 (2025), where it directed revisions to the short ballot title and the fiscal impact statement to ensure substantial compliance with statutory requirements. After the initiative qualified for the ballot, the officials prepared the contested Yes/No Effect Statements and distributed them to county clerks. The group’s objections were not resolved through negotiation, leading to the current original action before the Idaho Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho concluded that the group had standing under its relaxed standing doctrine, found it had original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and applied the standard of substantial compliance to the ballot statements. The court held that both the “yes” and “no” statements failed to clearly and concisely communicate the effect of a vote, as required by Idaho Code section 34-1810(1)(b). The court granted writs of prohibition and mandamus, prohibited use of the challenged statements, and ordered the officials to prepare new, compliant statements by a set deadline. The request for a writ of certiorari was denied as duplicative, and no attorney fees were awarded. View "Idahoans United v. McGrane" on Justia Law