In November 2014, a run-off election was held for a seat on the Chula Vista City Council. In early December 2014, Michael Vu, the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, certified the official canvas results showing that John McCann was the winner with 18,448 votes - two more than Steve Padilla, who received 18,446 votes. Contestant Aurora Clark appealed the trial court's denial of her election contest challenging 12 uncounted ballots. She alleged that each of the contested ballots (provisional or mail) was cast by a properly registered voter in Chula Vista and should have been counted. This appeal principally dealt with the handling of provisional ballots where the voter does not provide a current residence address on the ballot envelope. Because the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the elections official did not abuse his discretion, the Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Clark v. McCann" on Justia Law

The Lieutenant Governor declined to certify a proposed ballot initiative that would ban commercial set net fishing in nonsubsistence areas, reasoning that the initiative was a constitutionally prohibited appropriation of public assets. The superior court approved the initiative, concluding that set netters were not a distinct commercial user group and that the legislature and Board of Fisheries would retain discretion to allocate the salmon stock to other commercial fisheries. After the Supreme Court's review of the matter, it concluded that set netters were a distinct commercial user group that deserved recognition in the context of the constitutional prohibition on appropriations. The Court therefore reverse the superior court’s judgment because this proposed ballot initiative would have completely appropriated salmon away from set netters and prohibited the legislature from allocating any salmon to that user group. View "Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance" on Justia Law

Mary Siegel, a registered elector, filed a challenge to the voter registration of Randy Simes. The Board of Elections voted to reject the challenge. Barbara Holwadel and Steven Johnson (together, Holwadel) subsequently filed an action in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus overturning the board’s decision. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that Holwadel failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Board had a clear legal duty to strike Simes from the voter rolls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly refused to dismiss this case for lack of standing; and (2) the court of appeals properly refused to grant a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Elections and its members to remove Simes from the voter rolls. View "State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

There was only one judge on the Tenth Judicial District Court which had jurisdiction over the counties of Quay, DeBaca, and Harding. In 2008, Albert J. Mitchell, Jr. won a contested election for Tenth Judicial District judge against Judge Donald Schutte. Pursuant to 19 Article VI, Section 33 of the New Mexico Constitution, Judge Mitchell ran for retention in the 2014 general election. Prior to the retention election, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission evaluated Judge Mitchell and recommended that voters retain him in the general election. Despite the Commission’s recommendation, Judge Mitchell was not retained, failing to garner at least fifty-seven percent of the votes. A district court judges nominating committee was convened to solicit and evaluate applicants to fill Judge Mitchell’s impending vacancy. Before the nominating committee could meet, Petitioner Pamela Clark unsuccessfully tried to prevent to nominating committee from considering Judge Mitchell's application by petitioning the New Mexico Supreme Court. The nominating committee ultimately submitted the names of both applicants to the governor for consideration. Governor Susana Martinez appointed Judge Mitchell to the vacancy. This case called upon the New Mexico Supreme Court to interpret the 1988 amendments to the New Mexico Constitution governing judicial selection. The question before the Court was whether Article VI, Section 33 prohibited a district judge who lost a nonpartisan retention election from being appointed to fill the resulting vacancy created by that judge’s nonretention. The Court held that the New Mexico Constitution did not prohibit a judicial nominating commission from considering and nominating, or the governor from appointing, an otherwise qualified judicial applicant to fill a vacant judicial office based on the judicial applicant’s nonretention in the immediately preceding election. "We recognize that our holding may seem counterintuitive at first glance. However, our holding is governed by our Constitution’s provisions governing judicial succession, not retention." View "Clark v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Following the 2010 decennial census, the General Assembly enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives and for the North Carolina districts for the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiffs, registered voters, filed a complaint seeking to have the redistricting plans declared invalid on both constitutional and statutory grounds. The three-judge panel reviewing the redistricting plans upheld the plans. The Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court vacated this Court’s opinion and remanded for further consideration in light of its recent decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama. The Supreme Court reconsidered this case in light of Alabama and affirmed the three-judge panel’s judgment, holding that the General Assembly’s enacted plans do not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and satisfy state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements. Moreover, the three-judge panel’s decision fully complies with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alabama. View "Dickson v. Rucho" on Justia Law

The Libertarian Party claimed unequal treatment under Ohio’s election laws. The court entered partial summary judgment, finding that the statutes did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments and that sovereign immunity barred state constitutional claims, effectively denying a preliminary injunction. Such denials are immediately appealable (28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1)), but the Party filed a Rule 54(b) motion, asking that portions of the decision be made final (appealable). The court has not ruled on the motion. The Party filed notice of appeal 35 days after the court issued its order. The Sixth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 54(b), rulings that do not dispose of an entire case do not end the action; but if the court “expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay,” it may “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties.” A Rule 54(b) motion cannot request that a judgment be altered; granting the motion serves only to make a nonappealable order an appealable judgment. Unlike a Rule 59(e) request, the motion did not seek a modification of the order’s substance, but asked only that it be made appealable. Since the relevant portions of the order were immediately appealable under 1292, those portions were already a “judgment” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). View "Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted" on Justia Law

This opinion was intended to bring finality to litigation concerning the state’s congressional redistricting that has spanned nearly four years in state courts. This case was before the Supreme Court for approval of a final congressional districting plan in accordance with the Court’s previous opinion in Apportionment VII and the Fair Districts Amendment. The Court approved in full the trial court’s “Order Recommending Adoption of a Remedial Map,” and directed that the plan approved here shall be used in the 2016 congressional elections and thereafter until the next decennial redistricting. In so doing, the Court rejected the Legislature’s contention that this decision moves the “goalposts” on the Legislature in its redrawing of the districts and dismissed the contention that the courts adopted a plan drawn by “Democratic operatives.” View "League of Women Voters v. Detzner" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, petitioners sought review of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petitions 45 and 46 (2016) (IP 45 and IP 46), contending that the caption, the “yes” results statements, and the summaries did not comply with requirements set out in ORS 250.035(2). IP 46 was an alternative proposal to IP 45. Both Initiative Petitions would have amended aspects of a bill that the legislature enacted during the 2015 legislative session, Senate Bill (SB) 324 (Or Laws 2015, ch 4). SB 324 made changes to a 2009 state law that permitted the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to adopt standards and requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to adopt low carbon fuel standards for gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuels, as well as a schedule to reduce by 2020 the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent below 2010 levels. IP 46 would change parts of the original 2009 law and SB 324, repeating some (but not all) of the changes contained in IP 45, and making other changes. After review of petitioners’ arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that text of the Initiative Petitions did not substantially comply with that statutory standard. The Supreme Court therefore referred both ballot titles to the Attorney General for modification of the caption, the “yes” result statements, and the summaries. View "Blosser v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition (IP) 40 (2016), contending that the caption, the “yes” result statement, and the summary did not comply with requirements set out in ORS 250.035(2). IP 40 was a proposed statute that would make several changes to state law relating to the use and speaking of the English language. Section 1 declared English to be the official language of the State of Oregon and then required that official state actions be taken in English. Section 1 further provided that, with exceptions, persons who spoke only English must be eligible for all programs, benefits, and opportunities of the state and its subdivisions, including employment; and that English-only speakers may not be penalized, or have their rights or opportunities impaired, solely because they speak only English. Section 2 set out exceptions to certain aspects of section 1, detailing purposes for which the state and its “political subdivisions” may use a language other than English. Section 5 granted standing to any resident or person doing business in Oregon to seek a declaratory judgment as to whether a violation of the proposed statute has occurred and, if so, to obtain injunctive relief, with costs and reasonable attorney fees awarded to the prevailing party. After review of the initiative petition, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the “yes” result statement did not substantially comply with that statutory standard. The Attorney General was ordered to modify the “yes” result statement to more clearly and accurately describe two significant components of IP 40 not already captured in that statement. View "Kendoll v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

In November 2009, County of Alameda voters approved Measures I and J levying special parcel taxes by the Albany Unified School District. Plaintiff-appellant Golden Gate Hill Development Company, Inc. was the owner of a parcel of real property in the City of Albany subject to the tax. In February 2014, appellant filed suit against the County and District seeking a refund of taxes paid under the Measures. Golden Gage Hill alleged the tax rates in the Measures were improper because different rates are imposed on residential and nonresidential properties, as well as nonresidential properties of different sizes. The complaint referenced a recent decision in this district, “Borikas v. Alameda Unified School Dist.” (214 Cal.App.4th 135 (2013)), which declared invalid a different parcel tax with similar rate classifications. Respondents moved to dismiss, contending the complaint failed to state a claim because, under Code of Civil Procedure section 860, et seq. (“the validation statutes”), appellant was required to present its claims in a “reverse validation action” within 60 days of passage of the Measures. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Because appellant has not shown there was a basis for its refund claim independent of the alleged invalidity of the Measures, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Golden Gate Hill Development Co. v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law