Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

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

A nonprofit organization dedicated to gun violence prevention filed several administrative complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2018, alleging violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act by two entities associated with a national advocacy group. After the FEC failed to act within the statutory 120-day period, the nonprofit filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking an order compelling the FEC to act. Due to a lack of quorum, the FEC remained inactive for an extended period. Eventually, the District Court granted summary judgment to the nonprofit, ordered the FEC to act within 30 days, and later determined the FEC had not complied, thereby allowing the nonprofit to file a citizen suit against the NRA-associated entities.The national advocacy group sought to dismiss the citizen suit, arguing the District Court lacked jurisdiction. It also moved to intervene in the original action, but only for the limited purpose of unsealing the judicial record. Subsequently, after the District Court’s final judgment, the advocacy group filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) seeking relief from the orders and judgment, contending that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness and lack of adversity. The District Court denied this motion, holding that the group, as a nonparty, lacked standing to seek relief under Rule 60(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. The Court held that only parties to a lawsuit, or those who properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment. Since the advocacy group had not used any procedural mechanism to become a party to the underlying suit, it lacked the procedural ability to appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as impermissible under binding precedent. View "Giffords v. FEC" on Justia Law

In 2024, a Nebraska resident challenged the legal sufficiency of two initiative petitions submitted for the November general election. One petition sought to legalize medical cannabis; the other proposed regulatory measures. The challenge alleged that numerous signatures were invalid due to circulator fraud and improper notarization, contending that after excluding these signatures, the petitions lacked the minimum number required by the Nebraska Constitution. The Secretary of State, having initially certified the petitions, also filed a cross-claim seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the sufficiency of the signatures and the validity of the measures.The District Court for Lancaster County reviewed the claims. It found that while some signatures should lose their presumption of validity due to proven circulator fraud or improper notarization, the challengers had not shown that enough signatures were invalid to render the petitions legally insufficient. The court rejected the argument that improper notarization by a notary on some pages should invalidate all pages notarized by that individual, distinguishing circulator fraud from notarial errors. It also declined to draw adverse inferences from witnesses who had invoked the Fifth Amendment, citing Nebraska statutory law and the circumstances of ongoing criminal investigations.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order. The Court held that Barkley v. Pool, a precedent concerning circulator fraud, does not require blanket invalidation of signatures based on notary impropriety. It further held that the trial court did not err in declining to draw adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment invocations. Ultimately, the Court found no legal or factual error in the district court’s determinations regarding the validity of the petitions, the sufficiency of signatures, or the denial of a motion to amend pleadings. The district court’s order was affirmed. View "Kuehn v. Evnen" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (HB 1) in September 2025, which would repeal the 2022 congressional districts and establish new ones. Organizers opposed to HB 1 submitted a referendum petition to the Secretary of State, meeting both the signature and timing requirements set by the Missouri Constitution. The Secretary of State, however, issued a Certificate of Insufficiency, asserting that the Missouri Constitution does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting acts passed by the General Assembly, and directed that the petition not be placed on the November 2026 ballot.After this, Richard von Glahn, a proponent of the referendum, filed suit in the Cole County Circuit Court seeking to overturn the Secretary’s decision and prevent implementation of HB 1. The circuit court upheld the Secretary’s determination. Von Glahn appealed, and the Supreme Court of Missouri en banc granted discretionary transfer to address the important legal issue presented.The Supreme Court of Missouri en banc held that the Missouri Constitution’s article III, section 49, plainly authorizes the people to approve or reject by referendum “any act of the general assembly,” including congressional redistricting legislation. The Court found that none of the exceptions in article III, section 52(a) applied to HB 1 and rejected arguments that redistricting laws are exempt from referendum. The Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment, ordered the Secretary to certify the petition as sufficient, place it on the November 2026 ballot, and enjoined use of the HB 1 districts unless and until approved by voters. The congressional districts established in 2022 remain in effect for the 2026 election unless HB 1 is approved and takes effect thereafter. View "von Glahn vs. Hoskins" on Justia Law