Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Six state citizens and qualified voters residing in various areas of the state brought an action against the attorney general and secretary of state. A second group of citizens and qualified voters filed an action against the secretary of state, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Both sets of plaintiffs alleged that a redistricting map and configuration of certain districts were not valid under Mo. Const. art. III, 45. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The circuit court granted both motions and dismissed both cases. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments, holding that the pleadings raised issues of fact concerning whether various districts were "composed of contiguous terrority as compact...as may be" under Mo. Const. art. III, 45, and therefore, the motions to dismiss could not be sustained because the facts alleged met the elements of a recognized cause of action. Remanded. View "Pearson v. Koster" on Justia Law

Senator Jim Wilson filed suit in an attempt to have the State Senate Redistricting Act of 2011 declared invalid after the Supreme Court rejected his attempt to have the Act declared unconstitutional. In an earlier case, the Senator attached the Act as invalid because it "failed to create Senate districts which as nearly as possible preserve[d] the factors of 'compactness, political units, historical precedents, economic and political interests.'" In his petition in this case, he made "verbatim the same allegations as he did in [his earlier case]." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court properly dismissed Senator Wilson's petition because he failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because his claim was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion having been adjudicated against him in "Wilson I." The Court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Wilson v. Oklahoma ex rel. State Election Board" on Justia Law

After an at-large village council member resigned from his office, the village law director swore Respondent Scott Richardson into the office of member of village council to fill the vacancy. One day later, the mayor appointed Relator, Terry Johnson, to the office. Johnson then filed this action for a writ of quo warranto to oust Richardson from the office and to declare Johnson entitled to possession of that office. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the pertinent facts were uncontroverted and established Johnson's entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief where (1) Richardson did not receive enough votes to fill the vacancy on the village council under the plain language of the village charter; and (2) Johnson established that he was entitled to the office under the charter. View "State ex rel. Johnson v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Petitioners Jann Carson, David Fidanque, Roey Thorpe and Cynthia Pappas sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot initiative petition 22 (2012), arguing that the title did not satisfy the requirements of state law. "Initiative Petition 22" would amend the Oregon Constitution to create a new provision to "recognize personal 'right to life' (undefined) that begins at fertilization [and] prohibits all abortions [and] certain contraceptives." Petitioners contended that the ballot title was deficient in a number of respects pertaining to the caption, the "yes" and "no" vote result statements and the summary. The Supreme Court found that reference to the "full legal rights of a person" in the "no" vote result statement was too vague to substantially comply with state law. Furthermore, "the use of the phrase in the summary pose[d] the same problems and for that reason, the summary must be referred to the Attorney General to more accurately describe the current state of the law." The Court found that there appeared to be no dispute that adoption of the measure would have the effect of prohibiting certain fertility treatments. The Court therefore referred the ballot measure back to the Attorney General for further modification. View "Carson v. Kroger" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against various officials arising from his name not being placed on the 2010 primary election ballot in Houston, Texas. Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court held that no equitable relief was appropriate either because the relief was moot or because the court determined when examining the claims for damages that no constitutional violation occurred that would support such relief. The court also held that plaintiff lacked an interest protected by procedural due process and affirmed the district court's dismissal of that cause; plaintiff's interpretation of Anderson v. Celebrezze was not applicable; plaintiff's claims were rooted in procedural due process and his substantive due process claim failed; the dismissal of the equal protection claim was reversed and remanded where further proceedings were needed to determine whether plaintiff in fact submitted a proper application and, if he did, whether the Harris County Democratic Party Chairman purposefully discriminated or simply made an error or mistake of judgment; and the challenged election statute was constitutional. View "Wilson v. Birnberg, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Waters filed a petition to be a candidate for the Warren County Republican Party Central Committee for the 15th Precinct of Lebanon at the March 6, 2012 Republican primary election. Respondent Warren County Board of Elections voted to not certify Waters's candidacy. Waters then filed an expedited-election action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board and its members to certify his candidacy. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Waters was barred from candidacy in the March 6, 2012 Republican primary election because he voted in a primary election as a member of a different political party within the preceding two calendar years. View "State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth" on Justia Law

In 2010, Oklahoma voters approved a state constitutional amendment that would prevent state courts from considering or using Sharia law. Members of the state election board asked the Tenth Circuit to review whether a federal district court abused its discretion when it granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the Board from certifying the result. Plaintiff Muneer Awad sued the Election Board to prevent the certification of ballot title "SQ 755" from the November 2, 2010 election. Plaintiff is an American citizen residing in Oklahoma, and is the executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Plaintiff alleged that SQ 755 violated his rights under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. He objected to the amendment's singling out his religion for negative treatment. The district court granted a temporary restraining order on November 9, 2010. On November 22, 2010, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing and granted a preliminary injunction one week later. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the Board argued that Plaintiff's claims were not justiciable, and even if Plaintiff's Establishment or Free Exercise claims were justiciable, each failed to meet preliminary injunction requirements. Upon careful consideration of the district court record and the constitutional questions posed by the parties' briefs, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff's claims were justiciable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction based on those claims. View "Awad v. Ziriax, et al" on Justia Law