Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

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

A group called Idahoans United for Women and Families filed an original action in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking writs of certiorari and mandamus. They challenged the fiscal impact statement (FIS) and ballot titles prepared for a citizen initiative titled the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.” The group argued that the FIS and ballot titles did not comply with Idaho law and requested the court to either certify their versions or order the Idaho Division of Financial Management (DFM) and the Attorney General to prepare new ones.The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the petition against the Secretary of State, as Idahoans United failed to specify the writ or what they sought to compel. The court partially granted the writ of mandamus against DFM, finding that the FIS did not substantially comply with Idaho Code section 34-1812 due to a lack of a reasonable basis for its estimated fiscal impact, unclear language, and unnecessary legal terms. The court also partially granted the writ of mandamus against the Attorney General, concluding that the short ballot title did not substantially comply with Idaho Code section 34-1809 because it failed to capture all distinctive features of the initiative. However, the court found that the long ballot title substantially complied with the statutory requirements.The Idaho Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and ordered DFM to provide a new FIS and the Attorney General to provide a new short ballot title by a specified deadline. The court declined to certify the versions provided by Idahoans United and did not award attorney fees to any party. Upon submission, the court reviewed the new FIS and short ballot title, concluding that both substantially complied with the statutory requirements and certified the new short ballot title to the Idaho Secretary of State. View "Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador" on Justia Law

Joanne Pearson, a Republican candidate for Madison County Election Commissioner in District Three, won the election against Walter Young, Jr., a Democratic candidate, by a vote of 5,772 to 3,917. Pearson had filed her application to qualify as a candidate in January 2024, and the Madison County Board of Supervisors approved her candidacy in February 2024. Five citizens, collectively referred to as Brown, appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that Pearson’s application was incomplete and that there was a conflict of interest with the Board’s attorney, Spence Flatgard.The Madison County Circuit Court reviewed the case and denied Brown’s motion to disqualify Flatgard, affirming the Board’s decision to approve Pearson’s candidacy. The court found that Pearson’s application, despite some incomplete areas, met the statutory requirements for the position. Brown then appealed both decisions to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The court held that the Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in approving Pearson’s candidacy. It found that Pearson’s application substantially complied with the statutory requirements, and any minor irregularities did not mislead the electors. The court also upheld the circuit court’s decision to deny the motion to disqualify Flatgard, finding no conflict of interest as the Board and the election commission were not adverse parties in this matter. The court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was within its discretionary power. View "Brown v. Madison County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law