The Supreme Court reviewed actions of the Title Board in setting titles and ballot title and submission clauses for initiatives 2013-2014 90 and 93. Proponents complained that the titles did not contain one subject or fairly reflect the purpose of the proposed initiatives. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Title Board. View "In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90 and #93" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed actions of the Title Board in setting titles and ballot title and submission clauses for initiatives 2013-2014 85, 86 and 87. Proponents complained that the titles did not contain one subject or fairly reflect the purpose of the proposed initiatives. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Title Board. View "In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #85, #86, and #87" on Justia Law

After the Title Board set titles and submission clauses for Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #103, petitioners moved for a rehearing, claiming the initiative contained more than one subject and was impermissibly vague. One of the initiative's representatives was unable to attend the rehearing. The Secretary of State's office suggested that a designated representative withdraw and a substitute alternate attend the hearing. The Title Board allowed the substitution and proceeded to deny the petitioner's motion. On appeal, petitioners argued that the proposed initiative still contained too many subjects and was impermissibly vague. Furthermore, the argued the Title Board did not have authority to allow the substitute representative. The Supreme Court agreed that the Title Board's approval of the substitute was improper. Therefore, the Court reversed the Title Board's action and remanded the case back to the Board without decision on claims that the initiative addressed more than one subject or was vague. View "In re Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #103" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought lawsuits challenging the validity of the 2012 congressional apportionment plan (Plan) under the Florida Constitution's redistricting standards. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Florida state legislators and legislative staff members had an absolute privilege against testifying as to issues directly relevant to whether the Legislature drew the Plan with unconstitutional partisan or discriminatory intent. The circuit court permitted the discovery of information and communications, including the testimony of legislators, pertaining to the constitutional validity of the Plan. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the legislators had the absolute protection of a legislative privilege. The Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's decision and approved the circuit court's order, holding (1) Florida recognizes a legislative privilege founded on the constitutional principle of separation of powers; but (2) this privilege is not absolute where, as in this case, the purposes underlying the privilege are outweighed by the compelling, competing interest of effectuating the explicit constitutional mandate that prohibits partisan political gerrymandering and improper discriminatory intent in redistricting.View "League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Fla. House of Representatives" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, ten Massachusetts voters, submitted for certification an initiative petition that sought to prohibit casino and slots gambling that had been made legal under the Expanded Gaming Act of 2011 and to abolish parimutuel wagering on simulcast greyhound races. The Attorney General declined to certify the petition for inclusion on the November Statewide election ballot, concluding that it did not meet the requirements set forth in article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. Plaintiffs filed a complaint “for relief in the nature of mandamus” seeking an order compelling the Attorney General to certify the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court granted the requested relief, holding that the Attorney General erred in declining the certify the initiative petition, as it satisfied the requirements of article 48. View "Abdow v. Attorney Gen." on Justia Law

In the second year following each Federal decennial census, the Maryland Constitution provides that the Governor and State Legislature shall reapportion the State's legislative representation in accordance with the State's current demographics. At issue before the Court of Appeals in this case was the validity of Maryland's most recently enacted legislative apportionment plan. Three petitions challenging the enacted plan were filed. After a hearing, a Court of Appeals' Special Master denied each petitioner's petition and issued his recommendation that the enacted legislative apportionment plan be upheld against each of the challenges. The Court of Appeals supported the order of the Special Master, holding that Petitioners' exceptions to the Special Master's findings and recommendations were without merit. View "In re 2012 Legislative Districting of the State" on Justia Law

Proponents Mike Spaulding and Natalie Menten proposed Initiative 76 which sought to repeal and replace the existing manner of triggering and conducting a recall election under article XXI of the Colorado Constitution, and to institute a new constitutional right to recall state and local non-elected officers. The Title Board set a title and submission clause for the initiative. Registered elector Philip Hayes objected to the Board's action. The Board modified the title and submission clause in response to Hayes' objections, but otherwise denied his motion for rehearing. The proponents contended that the initiative, title and submission clause addressed a single subject and were in compliance with state law. The Supreme Court disagreed, and concluded the Title Board acted unconstitutionally in setting a title for the initiative. The Board's action was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #76" on Justia Law

Proponents Peter Coulter and Lisa Brumfiel proposed Initiative 129 to amend article X, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, known as the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). The Initiative sought to amend TABOR to define the term "fee" and differentiate it from a tax. Petitioner Anthony sought to challenge the initiative, arguing it contained multiple subjects. Alternatively, he argued the initiative's title was misleading. The Supreme Court concluded the initiative contained a single subject, and that the title clearly expressed a single subject. Therefore the Court affirmed the action of the Title Board. View "In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #129" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Patricia Working, Rick Erdemir, and Floyd McGinnis appealed a circuit court judgment that held that the Jefferson County Election Commission ("the JCEC"), Probate Judge Alan King, Circuit Clerk Anne-Marie Adams, and Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale were immune from liability as to the plaintiffs' attorney fees. In "Working I," the Supreme Court held that a February special election was invalid on state-law grounds, and that the Governor's appointment of George Bowman to fill a vacancy on the Election Commission was lawful. On remand to the circuit court, as the "prevailing parties," plaintiffs moved for attorney fees. The trial court denied their motion, and plaintiffs appealed. In "Working II," the Supreme Court addressed plaintiffs' that the trial court erred in denying their motion for mediation, and vacated the trial court's order denying the motion for an award of attorney fees and remanded the case. On remand, the trial court concluded that the JCEC defendants had not waived their immunity defense and that plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees against defendants was precluded by the Alabama Constitution as to plaintiffs' state-law claims. Plaintiffs then filed this third, appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded the case once again to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the issue of immunity and state-law claims, but remanded remand the case with instructions on the issue concerning section 6–6–20 and the federal-law claims. View "Working v. Jefferson County Election Commission" on Justia Law

Claudia Natalie Cabrera sought the nomination of the Maryland Democratic Party for the office of delegate in the June 2014 gubernatorial primary election, but when she tendered for filing a certificate of candidacy she was a registered member of the Republican Party. A registered voter in the legislative district that Cabrera sought to represent filed a petition in the circuit court challenging Cabrera’s candidacy. Meanwhile, the Maryland State Board of elections informed Cabrera of its intention to exclude Cabrera’s name from the primary election ballot. The circuit court declared Cabrera’s candidacy invalid and ordered Appellant’s name to be excluded from the primary election ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a registered member of one political party may not file a valid certificate of candidacy declaring the intent to run in the primary election of another political party. View "Cabrera v. Penate" on Justia Law