The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus requested by Jason Stevens to compel the Fairfield County Board of Elections to issue a certificate of nomination to certify Stevens’s name for placement on the May 8, 2018 primary-election ballot as a candidate for election to the Ohio Democratic Party State Central Committee.Stevens filed a petition to appear on the May 8 primary ballot as a Democratic candidate. The Board voted to deny Stevens access to the ballot because his voting history did not show he was a member of the Democratic Party. The Supreme Court granted the relief requested by Stevens, holding that, based on the plain language of Ohio Rev. Code 3513.05, Stevens satisfied the statutory requirements to stand for election to the Ohio Democratic Party state Central Committee, and the Board thus abused its discretion and acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions when it disallowed his candidacy. View "State ex rel. Stevens v. Fairfield County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus requested by Jonathan Heavey and Adam Hudak certifying their names to the May 8, 2018 ballot as candidates for the Democratic Party’s nominees for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, holding that Heavey and Hudak failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, a legal right to have their names placed on the May 8 ballot.Because the county boards of elections verified the validity of only 854 signatures in Heavey and Hudak’s part-petitions, Secretary of State Jon Husted did not certify Heavey and Husted as candidates for the May 8 ballot. In their present action, Heavey and Hudak alleged that Husted and the boards disregarded applicable law by rejecting at least 146 valid signatures. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Heavey and Hudak did not present clear and convincing evidence that they were at least 146 erroneously-rejected signatures. View "State ex rel. Heavey v. Husted" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus requested by Jonathan Heavey and Adam Hudak certifying their names to the May 8, 2018 ballot as candidates for the Democratic Party’s nominees for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, holding that Heavey and Hudak failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, a legal right to have their names placed on the May 8 ballot.Because the county boards of elections verified the validity of only 854 signatures in Heavey and Hudak’s part-petitions, Secretary of State Jon Husted did not certify Heavey and Husted as candidates for the May 8 ballot. In their present action, Heavey and Hudak alleged that Husted and the boards disregarded applicable law by rejecting at least 146 valid signatures. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Heavey and Hudak did not present clear and convincing evidence that they were at least 146 erroneously-rejected signatures. View "State ex rel. Heavey v. Husted" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court ordering a new Democratic special primary in this challenge brought by Plaintiff, a losing candidate, holding that the number of absentee ballots invalidated as a result of the Court’s disposition of the issues remained sufficiently high to place the reliability of the November 14, 2017 special primary results seriously in doubt.After the results of the special party were determined, Plaintiff challenged them pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-329a, arguing that improprieties in the absentee balloting process had undermined the reliability of the results. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that a new special primary be held as a result of the improprieties. The Supreme court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) improperly concluded that supervised absentee balloting at a certain nursing home did not comply with the statutory provisions governing that process; (2) correctly concluded that Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-140b(a) prohibits a party official or candidate from directing a police officer to retrieve absentee ballots from electors and to deliver them to the town clerk; and (3) correctly concluded that certain absentee ballots were not “mailed” within the meaning of that term, as used in section 9-140b(c). View "Keeley v. Ayala" on Justia Law

Judge Persky was appointed to the superior court in 2003 and has been reelected. Dauber and others submitted a “Petition for Recall of Judge Aaron Persky” to the Registrar of Voters (Elections Code 11006, 11020-11022). Judge Persky responded that under the California Constitution, the Secretary of State was the proper official for the recall of state officers and that the petition contained an “incorrect and misleading” demand for an election to choose a successor because a vacancy would be filled by the Governor. An amended recall petition was submitted to the Registrar and approved for circulation. Judge Persky sought a temporary restraining order to compel the Registrar to withdraw its certification and refer the matter to the Secretary of State; to enjoin the petition’s circulation until the Secretary of State certified it; and to enjoin circulation while the petition contained the "misleading" statement. The court of appeal affirmed that the Registrar was the proper official to approve recall petitions for superior court judges and that the Persky recall petition was not misleading. The statutory process for recall of a “local officer” was expressly made applicable to recall of a superior court judge and is not contrary to the state constitution; it does not impermissibly distinguish between appellate courts and superior courts, including their classification as “state” or “local” officers. View "Perksy v. Bushey" on Justia Law

Judge Persky was appointed to the superior court in 2003 and has been reelected. Dauber and others submitted a “Petition for Recall of Judge Aaron Persky” to the Registrar of Voters (Elections Code 11006, 11020-11022). Judge Persky responded that under the California Constitution, the Secretary of State was the proper official for the recall of state officers and that the petition contained an “incorrect and misleading” demand for an election to choose a successor because a vacancy would be filled by the Governor. An amended recall petition was submitted to the Registrar and approved for circulation. Judge Persky sought a temporary restraining order to compel the Registrar to withdraw its certification and refer the matter to the Secretary of State; to enjoin the petition’s circulation until the Secretary of State certified it; and to enjoin circulation while the petition contained the "misleading" statement. The court of appeal affirmed that the Registrar was the proper official to approve recall petitions for superior court judges and that the Persky recall petition was not misleading. The statutory process for recall of a “local officer” was expressly made applicable to recall of a superior court judge and is not contrary to the state constitution; it does not impermissibly distinguish between appellate courts and superior courts, including their classification as “state” or “local” officers. View "Perksy v. Bushey" on Justia Law

In this election contest, the circuit court properly granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that Appellant's petition was untimely filed under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law (EL) 12-202(b) and barred by the doctrine of laches.More than six months after the 2016 general election, Appellant filed a petition seeking to have the candidacy of the successful candidate for the position of judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County decertified. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the election claims were untimely under EL 12-202(b) and barred by the doctrine of laches. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the petition was untimely filed under EL 12-202(b) because Appellant did not file the petition until more than six months after the election and more than one year after Appellant became aware of the facts that served as the basis for the election claims and several months after the election results were certified; and (2) independent of the statutory limitations period set forth in EL 12-202(b), the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches because Appellant unreasonably delayed in asserting her rights, and that delay prejudiced Appellees. View "Ademiluyi v. State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

In this election contest, the circuit court properly granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that Appellant's petition was untimely filed under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law (EL) 12-202(b) and barred by the doctrine of laches.More than six months after the 2016 general election, Appellant filed a petition seeking to have the candidacy of the successful candidate for the position of judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County decertified. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the election claims were untimely under EL 12-202(b) and barred by the doctrine of laches. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the petition was untimely filed under EL 12-202(b) because Appellant did not file the petition until more than six months after the election and more than one year after Appellant became aware of the facts that served as the basis for the election claims and several months after the election results were certified; and (2) independent of the statutory limitations period set forth in EL 12-202(b), the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches because Appellant unreasonably delayed in asserting her rights, and that delay prejudiced Appellees. View "Ademiluyi v. State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

In this special proceeding before Michael Heavican, the Chief Justice of the Nebraska Supreme Court, Heavican concluded that Robert Krist be included on the primary election ballot as a Democratic candidate for Nebraska governor.Tyler Davis objected to the inclusion of Krist’s name on the primary ballot, alleging that Krist’s candidate filing form was not effective because Krist made a change of political party affiliation in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 32-612. Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale denied the objection, determining that Krist was a nonpartisan registered voter with no political party affiliation prior to February 12, 2018, and therefore, his Nebraska voter registration application filed that day declaring his “Party Affiliation” as a Democrat was a declaration of a political party affiliation, not a change of political party affiliation. Heavican concluded that Gale properly denied Davis’ objection, concluding that non-partisan is not a “political party affiliation” but rather is the lack of a political party affiliation. View "Davis v. Gale" on Justia Law

Two sets of petitioners challenged the Oregon Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 33 (2018) (IP 33). If adopted, IP 33 would require that “government employee unions” annually report certain information to the Secretary of State, primarily how dues would be spent on union administration. Chief petitioners Schworak and Mitchell challenged the summary, while petitioners Lutz and Schwartz challenged all parts of the certified ballot title. After reviewing the petitioners’ arguments, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the proposed caption, the “no” result statement, and the summary did not substantially comply and must be modified. The “yes” result statement did substantially comply and did not require modification. View "Lutzv. Rosenblum" on Justia Law