Floyd McKee contested the election after he was defeated by Joe Chandler in the Democratic primary run-off election for District 5 Supervisor of Clay County. After the Clay County Democratic Executive Committee (CCDEC) ruled in favor of Chandler, McKee filed a petition for judicial review with the Clay County Circuit Court. Chandler filed a motion to dismiss McKee’s petition, arguing that it was not timely filed. This interlocutory appeal stems from the circuit court’s denial of Chandler’s motion to dismiss. Finding that the circuit court erred in failing to grant Chandler’s motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded this case back to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss McKee’s petition for judicial review. View "Chandler v. McKee" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the sufficiency of signatures counted by Mark Martin, the Secretary of State, in the initial ballot petition, “The Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act.” The Act was on the November 8, 2016 ballot and was sponsored by Arkansans for Compassionate Care 2016. The sponsor initially submitted 117,547 signatures. Martin validated 77,516 signatures. In challenging the sufficiency of the petition, Kara Benca needed to invalidate 9,629 signatures to have the petition removed. A special master appointed by the Supreme Court found that 2,087 signatures were disqualified but that the remainder of the signatures could be counted. The Supreme Court disallowed 12,104 signatures, leaving approximately 2,465 fewer signatures than required to satisfy constitutional requirements. View "Benca v. Martin" on Justia Law

After party caucuses hosted by the two factions comprising the state’s Independent Party, two different nominees for the United States Senate were certified to the secretary of state. The Independent Party of CT-State Central nominated Daniel Carter, and the Independent Party of Connecticut nominated John Price. The secretary of state notified the factions that neither name would be placed on the ballot under the Independent Party line unless one nominee withdrew. Price, the Independent Party of Connecticut, and a member of that party (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action alleging various violations of party rules and election statutes during the caucus of the Independent Party of CT-State Central and seeking relief under Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-323. Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction compelling Carter to withdraw his nomination and compelling the secretary of state to place Price’s name on the November, 2016 ballot. The Supreme Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding (1) officials administering minor party caucuses are not “election officials” for purposes of section 9-323, and therefore, Plaintiffs were not aggrieved under the statute by the actions of those officials; and (2) even if Plaintiffs’ claims fell within the purview of section 9-323, the doctrine of laches would operate as an adequate ground to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action. View "Price v. Independent Party of CT--State Central" on Justia Law

The issue presented by this matter for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether section 5 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) preempted a Kansas law requiring documentary proof of citizenship ("DPOC") for voter registration as applied to the federally-mandated voter-registration form that is part of any application to obtain or renew a driver's license. The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted a motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Kansas DPOC requirements, holding that plaintiffs-appellees made a strong showing that the Kansas law was preempted by NVRA section 5. Defendant-appellant Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach appealed the district court’s entry of the preliminary injunction, which required him to register to vote any applicants previously unable to produce DPOC and to cease enforcement of Kansas’s DPOC requirement with respect to individuals who apply to register to vote at the Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") through the "motor voter" process. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found after review that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because the NVRA preempted Kansas's DPOC law as enforced against those applying to vote while obtaining or renewing a driver's license. "Having determined that Secretary Kobach has failed to make this showing, we conclude that the DPOC required by Kansas law is more than the minimum amount of information necessary and, therefore, is preempted by the NVRA. We affirm the grant of a preliminary injunction." View "Fish v. Kobach" on Justia Law

This case concerned the proposed constitutional amendment known as An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits. The Attorney General certified the popular name, as modified, and ballot title of the proposed constitutional amendment, and the Secretary of State certified the proposed amendment to be placed on the ballot for the November 8 general election. Petitioners brought this original action asking the Supreme Court to declare the ballot title of the proposed amendment insufficient. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the ballot title was insufficient. View "Wilson v. Martin" on Justia Law

This case concerned the proposed constitutional amendment known as An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits. Petitioners brought this original action seeking an order to invalidate the proposed amendment, alleging failure to comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws, failure to submit the requisite number of verified signatures, and insufficiency of the amendment’s ballot title. This opinion addressed the sufficiency of the ballot title. The Supreme Court granted the petition to enjoin the Secretary of State from counting or certifying ballots cast for the amendment, holding that the ballot title of the proposed amendment was insufficient. View "Ross v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Attorney General issued an opinion approving the popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment known as The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016. Petitioner, individually and on behalf of Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana, brought this original action challenging the sufficiency of the ballot title of the proposed amendment, alleging that the ballot title contains misleading statements and omits material information that is essential for a fair understanding of the amendment. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that voters in the upcoming November election will be able to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or against the proposed amendment. View "Rose v. Martin" on Justia Law

Issue No. 5 was a proposed constitutional amendment to allow three casinos to operate in three counties in Arkansas. The Secretary of State certified to place Issue No. 5 on the November 8, 2016 ballot. Petitioners, individually and on behalf of the Committee to Protect Arkansas’ Values/Stop Casinos Now, brought this original action challenging the legal sufficiency of the ballot title for Issue No. 5. The Sponsors of the Act intervened in this matter and filed a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the petition, holding that the ballot title of the proposed amendment was insufficient. View "Lange v. Martin" on Justia Law

In 2014, New Hampshire amended a statute by forbidding citizens from photographing their marked ballots and publicizing those photographs (referred to as “ballot selfies”). Three New Hampshire citizens filed suit, arguing that the statute was a content-based restriction of speech that, on its face, violates the First Amendment. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the New Hampshire Secretary of State argued that the statute was justified to prevent vote buying and voter intimidation. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the statute as amended is facially unconstitutional even applying only intermediate scrutiny, and the statute’s purposes cannot justify the restrictions it imposes on speech. View "Rideout v. Gardner" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed a petition under Minn. Stat. 204B.44 asserting that Respondents - the Secretary of State, the Ramsey County and Hennepin County election managers, and certain election judges - were not taking the necessary steps to ensure that those ineligible to vote were not permitted to vote, in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine and the constitutional rights of eligible voters. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that, even if the petition properly invoked the Court’s original jurisdiction under section 204B.44, the Court would not exercise it in this case because an exercise of original jurisdiction over this case was not warranted. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Simon" on Justia Law