In 1998, Arizona voters passed an initiative to create the Citizens Clean Elections Act (“CCEA”), which established public funding for political candidates in statewide and state legislative elections. Under this system, candidates who opt not to receive public funding (“nonparticipating candidates”) cannot accept contributions greater than eighty percent of the campaign contribution limits as specified in Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-905. In 2013, the legislature passed H.B. 2593, which amended section 16-905 by increasing campaign contribution limits. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission and others ("Commission") asked the superior court to declare H.B. 2593 unconstitutional and to enjoin the Secretary of State from implementing it, alleging that the CCEA fixed campaign contribution limits as they existed in 1998 for nonparticipating candidates. The superior court denied the Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The issue eventually reached the Supreme Court, which held that, rather than fixing contribution limits at eighty percent of the amounts that existed in 1998, the CCEA provides a formula for calculating contribution limits, and therefore, the superior court did not err in its judgment.View "Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Hon. Brain" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Supreme Court ousted George Maier as sheriff of Stark County based on Maier’s failure to meet the employment qualifications. Maier subsequently went back to work full-time for Harrison County as a deputy sheriff. The Stark County Democratic Central Committee believed this employment cured the defect in Maier’s qualifications and again appointed him Stark County Sheriff. Thereafter, Maier submitted an application to be a candidate for sheriff in the May 6, 2014 Democratic primary election. Relator filed a protest with the Stark County Board of Elections (“BOE”), claiming that Maier remained unqualified to be a candidate for sheriff. The BOE’s hearing on the protest resulted in a tie vote. Secretary of State Jon Husted broke the tie in favor of denying the protest. Relator filed this action in prohibition to order the BOE and Husted to remove a BOE member for purposes of this protest for alleged bias and to order Husted to remove Maier from the primary ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that neither Husted nor the BOE had the clear authority to remove a board of elections member for bias and because Husted did not abuse his discretion in allowing Maier to remain on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Balas-Bratton v. Husted" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed a combined petition challenging the legal sufficiency of Initiative No. 171 (I-171), a proposed ballot measure that would prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from using funds, resources, or personnel to administer or enforce the federal Affordable Care Act, among other things. Petitioners sought an order enjoining the Secretary of State from approving petitions for circulation to the electorate for signatures or otherwise submitting the measure for approval by the voters and further sought a declaration that I-171 was unconstitutional and void. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) the Attorney General correctly determined that I-171 was legally sufficient; and (2) the ballot statements for I-171 satisfy the requirements of law.View "Hoffman v. State" on Justia Law

The district court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting Ohio from enforcing and implementing SB 238’s amendments to section 3509.01 of the Ohio Revised Code reducing the EIP [early in person] voting period from 35 days before an election to the period beginning the day following the close of voter registration. The court ordered that, for purposes of the 2014 general election: the EIP voting period shall consist of the 35 days prior to the election; all Ohio county Boards of Election must set uniform and suitable EIP voting hours, in addition to those currently established on specific dates. In setting such hours, the Secretary of State must, in good faith, take into consideration findings and legal conclusions regarding the impact of a lack of evening voting hours on the protected classes of voters. The Sixth Circuit declined to enter a stay pending appeal. Plaintiffs convincingly argued that informally, the Order’s contents already were disseminated to the public. Staying the Order would add to confusion and adversely affect voter turnout during EIP voting if the Order is ultimately affirmed. View "OH State Conference of the NAACP v. DeWine" on Justia Law

A federal district judge issued an injunction that blocks the State of Wisconsin from conducting a judicially supervised criminal investigation into whether certain persons have violated the state’s campaign-finance laws. The court acted despite 28 U.S.C. 2283, the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides: “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” In 1972 the Supreme Court (Mitchum v. Foster) held that 42 U.S.C.1983 authorizes anti-suit injunctions if appropriate under principles of “equity, comity, and federalism.” The Seventh Circuit held that this case does not present a situation in which state proceedings may be displaced. The Anti-Injunction Act embodies a fundamental principle of federalism: state courts are free to conduct their own litigation, without ongoing supervision by federal judges, let alone threats by federal judges to hold state judges in contempt. The scope given to state litigation is especially great in the realm of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss, leaving all further proceedings to the courts of Wisconsin. View "O'Keefe v. Chisholm" on Justia Law

On Sept. 18, 2013, Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question 767 was filed with Secretary of State. The Initiative Petition proposes amendments to the State Constitution with an ultimate primary purpose of constructing storm shelters for schools. Proponents also filed with the Secretary of State a proposed ballot title for their proposed Initiative. The Oklahoma Attorney General disagreed with Proponents' ballot title and then prepared and filed with the Secretary of State a new ballot title for the Initiative. The Proponents disagreed with the Attorney General's version and appealed to the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court held that: (1) a proponent of an initiative petition must file or submit a copy of the initiative petition and a copy of the ballot title to the Attorney General when the proponent files the initiative petition and ballot title with the Secretary of State; (2) the Attorney General must file a response to a ballot title within five business days from the date the ballot title is filed; (3) the Attorney General's section 9(D) response to a ballot title is statutorily effective although the Attorney General's response was filed two days late; (4) a proponent of an initiative who challenges a ballot title prepared by the Attorney General has the burden to show that the Attorney General's ballot title is legally incorrect, or is not impartial, or fails to accurately reflect the effects of the proposed initiative; (5) the Attorney General's ballot title challenged in this proceeding was legally correct, impartial, and accurately reflected the effects of the proposed initiative; (6) when a ballot title appeal has been made, a proponent's ninety-day period of time to collect signatures commences when the ballot title appeal is final. View "In re: Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Florida Secretary of State, arguing that Florida was violating the 90 Day Provision of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(c)(2)(A), by conducting a program to systematically remove suspected non-citizens from the voter rolls within 90 days of a federal election. The 90 Day Provision requires states to "complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters." Concerned about people who are not citizens casting ballots in Florida elections, the Secretary engaged in two separate programs to identify and remove non-citizens from the Florida voter rolls. Determining that the issue was not moot even if the 2012 elections have passed, the court concluded that the plain meaning of the 90 Day Provision indicates that the Secretary's actions fall under the category of "any program...to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters." Further, the statutory context and policy of the NVRA supported the court's conclusion that the plain meaning of "any program...to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters" was intended by Congress to include programs like the Secretary's. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.View "Arcia, et al. v. Florida Secretary of State" on Justia Law

After a group of Richmond Heights, Ohio electors submitted a “recall petition” to recall Mayor Miesha Wilson Headen, the Richmond Heights City Council voted to certify the mayoral recall issue for inclusion on the ballot. A special election was scheduled for September 23, 2014, and early voting in the special election began on August 27, 2014. On September 4, 2014, James G. Dawson attempted to file a written protest against the special election. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections refused to accept the protest because the voting had already begun. Dawson subsequently filed suit seeking a writ of prohibition against the Board of Elections to prevent it from submitting the recall initiative to the voters at the September 23, 2014 special election. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Dawson failed to present any reason why a writ of prohibition should issue to prevent the recall election. View "State ex rel. Dawson v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The Anchorage Assembly passed an ordinance modifying the labor relations chapter of the Anchorage Municipal Code. Two citizen-sponsors filed an application for a referendum that would repeal the ordinance. The Municipality rejected the application, reasoning that the proposed referendum addressed administrative matters that were not proper subjects for direct citizen legislation. The sponsors filed suit in superior court and prevailed on summary judgment. The Municipality appealed, arguing that the referendum was barred because: (1) state and municipal law grants exclusive authority over labor relations to the Assembly; (2) the referendum made an appropriation; and (3) its subject was administrative, not legislative. Following oral argument, the Supreme Court issued an order on January 10, 2014, affirming the superior court's grant of summary judgment to the sponsors. This opinion explained the Court's reasoning. View "Municipality of Anchorage v. Holleman" on Justia Law

On June 17, 2014, the city council of Powell approved a development plan prosing new construction in the Powell downtown business district by adopting Ordinance No. 2014-10. Relators filed petitions with the city clerk in support of three ballot measures: a referendum to block Ordinance No. 2014-10 from taking effect, an initiative to approve an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2014-10, and an amendment to the city charter that would nullify Ordinance No. 2014-10. The city clerk transmitted the three petitions to the Delaware County Board of Elections. As a result of the combined actions of the city council and the board of elections, none of the three ballot measures was certified for the November 4, 2014 ballot. Relators filed this mandamus action to compel with city council and city clerk to place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the proposed charter amendment unlawfully delegated legislative power, and therefore, the city council did not have a clear legal duty to put the measure on the November 4, 2014 ballot. View "State ex rel. Ebersole v. Powell" on Justia Law