Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an unsuccessful candidate for judicial office in Mohave County, Arizona, filed suit challenging the facial and as-applied constitutionality of certain provisions of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. The court held that Rule 4.1(A)(6) (the solicitation clause) is unconstitutional as applied to non-judge judicial candidates because it restricts speech that presents little to no risk of corruption or bias towards future litigants and is not narrowly tailored to serve those state interests. The court held that Rules 4.1(A)(2)-(5) - prohibiting speechifying, endorsements, and fundraising - are not sufficiently narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in an impartial judiciary, and are therefore unconstitutional restrictions on political speech of non-judge candidates for judicial office. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.View "Wolfson v. Concannon, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the ballot title for Initiative Petition 38 (2014) (IP 38), arguing that the ballot title does not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). IP 38, if adopted, would alter the Oregon primary election process for certain partisan offices, denominated "voter choice offices" (United States Senator, Congressional Representative, Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, state Senator, state Representative, and any state, county, city, or district partisan office for which the law currently authorizes political party nominations to the general election). In addition, IP 38 would have modified the process for filling vacancies in partisan offices. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the ballot title did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2), and referred the title back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Dixon v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the ballot title for Initiative Petition 44 (2014) that if adopted, would have enacted statutory provisions to impose certain requirements on food manufacturers and retailers concerning the labeling of genetically engineered foods. The Supreme Court considered the various challenges to the certified ballot title that each petitioner advanced and concluded that only one had merit. The ballot title error that the Court identified in this proceeding was an acknowledged scrivener's error, the correction of which was straightforward and ministerial. The Supreme Court corrected the error and certified the corrected ballot title to the Secretary of State. View "Bates v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

The Indianapolis Marion County City-County Council and Mayor Gregory Ballard agreed on an ordinance dividing Marion County into legislative districts. Three members of the Council (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the ordinance failed to comply with the Redistricting Statute for Marion County, which assigns the task of redrawing the County’s legislative districts to the judiciary if the County’s legislative and executive branches become deadlocked over required redistricting. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and then drew new legislative districts, concluding that because the Council divided the County by ordinance in 2011, not during 2012 as required by the Redistricting Statute, the ordinance failed to satisfy the requirement for “mandatory redistricting” during 2012. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that this case did not present a redistricting impasse that required judicial intervention.View "Ballard v. Lewis" on Justia Law

After plaintiff, who was twenty-seven years old at the time, was excluded from the presidential primary ballot under California law, she filed suit under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Twentieth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice. The court concluded that the case was not moot because it was "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The court concluded that age requirements, like residency requirements and term limits, are neutral candidacy qualifications which the State had the right to impose; any burden on plaintiff's speech and association rights were minimal; and the burden was justified by California's asserted interest in protecting the integrity of the election process and avoiding voter confusion. The court rejected plaintiff's Equal Protection claim; because including ineligible candidates on the ballot could easily cause voter confusion, treating ineligible candidates differently from eligible ones was rationally related to the state's interest in maintaining the integrity of the election process; and the Secretary did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by excluding from the ballot candidates who are indisputably ineligible to serve, while listing those with a colorable claim of eligibility. Even if the Twentieth Amendment gave rise to a private right of action, nothing in the Twentieth Amendment states or implies that Congress has the exclusive authority to exclude a candidate with a known ineligibility from the presidential ballot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Lindsay v. Bowen" on Justia Law

The Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO) sought to enjoin Ohio Secretary of State Husted from enforcing Ohio Rev. Code 3501.38(E)(1) and to restore its candidates to the May 2014 primary ballot. The Code requires that, to appear on the primary ballot and qualify for the general election, candidates must file petitions with (for statewide office) signatures of at least 500 qualified electors who are members of the same political party as the candidate. A petition consists of separate papers, each with signatures of electors of only one county; only one circulator can circulate each paper. Signatures must be in ink and include the location of the signer’s residence, as it appears on registration records. The circulator must note the number of signatures on each paper, and sign a statement that the circulator witnessed every signature and that, to the best of the circulator’s knowledge, each signature was that of a qualified voter and of the person whose signature it purports to be. The circulator must also identify the circulator’s name, address of permanent residence, and the name and address of the person employing the circulator to circulate the petition, if any. LPO previously successfully challenged an Ohio residency requirement for circulators. Hatchett collected signatures for LPO candidates and was paid about $2300. Hatchett, an independent contractor, believed it was unnecessary to fill in the employee information box, having circulated about 10,000 petition papers without completing that box. In response to a protest, papers submitted by Hatchett were invalidated. This was the first time enforcement of the employer disclosure requirement resulted in the disqualification of a statewide candidate. Absent a protest, practice had been not to check petitions for that disclosure. Because of the disqualification, LPO will likely lose its recognition as an Ohio political party. The district court rejected due process and First Amendment challenges to the statute. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Libertarian Party of OH v. Husted" on Justia Law

Candidates for Chicago mayor, city treasurer, or city clerk must submit signatures from 12,500 “legal voters of the city” to have their name printed on the ballot, 65 ILCS 20/21-28(b). This number is just under 1% of the 1.3 million registered Chicago voters. As a proportion of active voters, the number is higher. Candidates are advised to allow some margin for error, in case of challenges. They have 90 days in which to gather signatures. Voters may not sign more than one nominating petition for the same office in a single election cycle. Chicago’s most recent general election took place in February 2011; 20 candidates submitted petitions to run for mayor, including four of the plaintiffs. Only Walls gathered enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The plaintiffs challenged the 12,500-signature requirement. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. While an interlocutory appeal was pending Rahm Emanuel was elected mayor. Walls came in sixth. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to also challenge the 90-day limitation and the rule that a voter cannot sign more than one candidate’s petition in any election cycle. The district court concluded that their claims had been “soundly rejected by extensive Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent” and dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Stone v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs for the City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In a consolidated ballot title case, three sets of petitioners asked the Supreme Court to review the ballot title for Initiative Petition 47 (2014). Initiative Petition 47 (IP 47), if enacted, would have changed the way that liquor was sold in Oregon. IP 47 would eliminate the current system of state-licensed liquor stores and allow "holders of distilled liquor self-distribution permits" (wholesalers) to distribute liquor to "qualified retailers," who would, in turn, sell the liquor to the public. In this case, if the Attorney General had used the word "fee" to describe the "revenue replacement fee," her use of that word would have raised substantial questions. In addition, petitioners challenged the AG's use of language in the "yes" vote result statement. Finding "difficulties" that the Attorney General faced in trying to describe accurately and succinctly the extensive changes that IP 47 would effect, the Court could not say that the remainder of the ballot title did not substantially comply with her statutory obligations. View "McCann v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

The South Carolina Libertarian Party sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether the Equal Access to the Ballot Act was in effect. If the Court determined the Act was effective, the Party requested that the South Carolina State Election Commission be ordered to conduct a Libertarian Party primary on June 10, 2014, and place a referendum question on the primary ballot for approval of the use of the convention method of nominating candidates by petitioner in 2016. The Supreme Court granted the petition for original jurisdiction and declared the Act was in effect. However. The Court denied the Party's request to require the Commission to conduct a primary and place a referendum question on the primary ballot. View "SC Libertarian Party v. SC Election Commission" on Justia Law

Appellant submitted a declaration of candidacy to run in the May 6, 2014 primary for an elected position on the Democratic Party State Central Committee and, along with the declaration, submitted a nominating petition containing nine total signatures. The Franklin County Board of Elections rejected Appellant’s declaration because, according to the Board’s judgment, Appellant did not submit five valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. After Appellant unsuccessfully appealed, Appellant filed a complaint for writ of mandamus with the court of appeals. The court denied the writ. The Supreme Court granted the writ and ordered the Board to add Appellant’s name to the May 6, 2014 primary ballot, holding that the Board abused its discretion in determining that the nominating petition did not contain five valid signatures.View "State ex rel. Scott v. Franklin County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law