On December 1, 2015, Gary Lee filed a petition and declaration of candidacy for sheriff at the Hamilton County Board of Elections. On January 4, 2016, David Duclos filed a written protest with the Board of Elections, alleging that Lee’s application was incomplete because it did not include the result sheet of an FBI background check. During the course of a protest hearing held by the Board, the report from the FBI was entered into evidence. The Board then denied the protest. On January 14, 2016, Duclos filed a mandamus complaint but, five days later, sought to dismiss that action and filed a new complaint for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition on the grounds of laches, concluding that Duclos unreasonably delayed bringing this action to the prejudice of Respondents. View "State ex rel. Duclos v. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

In 2012, Plaintiffs brought this action arguing that they were unlawfully removed from the Commonwealth’s active voter registry for having failed to vote in the 2008 election for Resident Commissioner. On interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit held that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) bars Puerto Rico from removing voters from the registry for the office of Resident Commissioners unless they fail to participate in the preceding two general federal elections. On remand, the district court found in favor of Plaintiffs and issued injunctive and declaratory relief from removing otherwise eligible voters from the active election registry unless HAVA's requirements are met. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the National Voter Registration Act does not apply to Puerto Rico and thus does not supersede the Commonwealth’s voter deactivation procedures; (2) HAVA invalidates the deactivation procedures of Article 6.021 of Puerto Rico Act No. 2011 insofar as it applies to voter eligibility for federal elections; and (3) Plaintiffs may bring a private cause of action seeking relief under HAVA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez" on Justia Law

Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. sought extraordinary relief to prevent a tax levy for Sugarcreek Township from appearing on the March 15, 2016 election ballot because it was allegedly not in compliance with state laws. The Supreme Court (1) granted in part the requested writ of mandamus, holding that the Board of Election was under a clear legal duty to remove the levy from the ballot because it was untimely; but (2) declined to issue a writ of prohibition because the Board was not engaged in a quasi-judicial function when it prepared the ballot. View "State ex rel. Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. v. Greene County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

In 2015, Derrick Shepherd filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and for Injunctive Relief. He filed a notice of candidacy qualifying form with the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court’s office in which he certified that he would be a candidate for the office of State Representative for District 87 of the Louisiana House of Representatives in the primary election to be held on October 24, 2015. Shepherd's petition alleged that the District Attorney for the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District, filed a petition objecting to Shepherd's candidacy because Shepherd pled guilty to a felony in a United States District Court in 2008, and it had been less than fifteen years since he completed his sentence, circumstances which disqualified Shepherd from seeking office pursuant to La. Const. art. I, section 10(B). At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the district court rendered judgment in Shepherd’s favor, declaring Article I, section 10(B) of the Constitution null and void for failure to comply with the requirements of Article XIII, section 1 of the Constitution for promulgation of amendments to the Constitution. After reviewing the record, the legislative instruments, and the constitutional provision at issue, the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the constitutionally mandated requirements for amending the constitution were not followed in this case. View "Shepherd v. Schedler" on Justia Law

Petitioners, chair of the state Democratic Executive Committee and the members of the state Democratic Executive Committee for the Ninth Senatorial District, requested the issuance of a writ of mandamus against Respondents, the Governor and members of the state Republic Executive Committee for the Ninth Senatorial District, seeking to compel the Governor to fill a vacancy in the West Virginia Senate from a list of three candidates to be selected by Petitioners. The Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause and ordered Respondents to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be awarded as requested by Petitioners. After an oral hearing, the Supreme Court denied the requested writ, holding that the vacancy is to be filled from a list of three candidates to be selected by the Republic Executive Committee for the Ninth Senatorial District based upon the outgoing senator’s most recent affiliation with the Republican Party. View "State ex rel. Biafore v. Tomblin" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a City of Wichita ordinance that reduces the severity level of a first-offense conviction for possession of marijuana under certain circumstances. Relying upon the Kansas initiative and referendum statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. 12-3013, the city council submitted a general description of the proposed ordinance as a ballot question. City electors approved the ordinance in the April 2015 general election. The State subsequently filed this petition in quo warranto asking the Supreme Court to declare the ordinance null and void. The State also asked the Court to permanently prohibit the City from publishing, implementing and enforcing the ordinance, arguing, inter alia, that it was not adopted with the procedures set forth in section 12-3013(a). The Supreme Court agreed and granted the State’s request for a writ in quo warranto, holding that the ordinance is null and void because its proponents failed to follow the procedural requirements of the Kansas initiative and referendum statute. View "State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging the FEC’s rule requiring corporations and labor organizations to disclose only those donations “made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” At issue in this appeal is whether the rule survives Step Two of the Chevron framework and State Farm's arbitrary and capricious test, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. The court held that the FEC’s purpose requirement satisfies both Chevron Step Two and State Farm review has the benefit both of being a correct application of black letter administrative law and of forestalling to some other time an answer to the important constitutional questions bubbling beneath the surface of this case. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC" on Justia Law

A petition was submitted to to the clerk of the Hilliard City Council to amend the city charter. The City Council voted against an ordinance to place the proposed charter amendment on the March 15, 2016 ballot. Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Hilliard City Council to approve an ordinance placing a proposed city-charter amendment on the March 15, 2016 ballot. Relators subsequently commenced this original action for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the city council’s objections to the petition were unavailing, and therefore, the city council was compelled to approve the necessary ordinance to place the initiative petition on the March 15, 2016 ballot. View "State ex rel. Carrier v. Hilliard City Council" on Justia Law

In 2013 Ohio enacted Rev. Code 3503.06(C)(1)(a): “Except for a nominating petition for presidential electors, no person shall be entitled to circulate any petition unless the person is a resident of this state.” Non-profit organizations wrote to Secretary of State Husted, asking whether he planned to “reject[] petitions where the circulator is domiciled in a state other than Ohio[.]” “While a court may ultimately find this law unconstitutional,” Husted responded, “that determination is a decision for the judicial branch, not the Secretary of State… this office and county boards of election will implement this law like any other until such time as the legislature acts to make a statutory change or a court directs otherwise.” One of the non-profit groups hired a firm to gather signatures for an initiative petition, paying a higher-than-usual fee to ensure that the firm hired in-state signature gatherers. The organizations then sought a declaration that the residency requirement was unconstitutional, an injunction prohibiting its enforcement, and damages against Husted “as compensation for extra petition circulation charges.” The court granted the plaintiffs a permanent injunction and denied Husted’s qualified-immunity motion. The Sixth Circuit reversed the qualified-immunity ruling; the Secretary had no clearly established duty to decline enforcement of the properly enacted and presumptively constitutional statute. View "Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Husted" on Justia Law

Initiative Petition No. 403 sought to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by adding a new Article 13-C. The proposed article would create the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund, designed to provide for the improvement of public education in Oklahoma through an additional one-cent sales and use tax. Funds generated by the one-cent tax would be distributed to public school districts, higher education institutions, career and technology centers, and early childhood education providers for certain educational purposes outlined in the proposed article. Additionally, a percentage of the funds would be used to provide a $5,000.00 pay raise to all public school teachers. Opponents challenged the initiative, arguing it violated the one general subject rule of Art. 24, sec. 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Initiative Petition No. 403 did not violate the one general subject rule and was legally sufficient for submission to the people of Oklahoma. View "IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 403 STATE QUESTION NO. 779" on Justia Law