This case arose from a political battle concerning labor unions. Chula Vista Citizens and the Associations sought to place an initiative on the Chula Vista municipal ballot. The City of Chula Vista requires that initiative proponents be electors (the elector requirement). Because Cal. Elec. Code 9202(a) requires proponents to sign a notice of intent, the effect of Cal. Elec. Code 9207 is that the identities of official proponents are disclosed to would-be signatories of the petition (the petition-proponent disclosure requirement). Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the elector and petition-proponent disclosure requirements, both facially and as applied, violated the First Amendment. Determining that the elector requirement was properly before the court because it implicated the chilling of expression and because the parties had not indicated that there were many pending actions in the California courts, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants as to the elector requirement where the Associations did not have a First Amendment right to serve as official proponents of local ballot initiatives. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants as to the petition-proponent disclosure requirement where the requirement was unconstitutional because they require official initiative proponents to identify themselves on the face of initiative petitions. View "Chula Vista Citizens v. Norris" on Justia Law

The Pulaski County Election Commission (PCEC) filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the circuit court challenging the constitutionality of certain emergency rules promulgated by the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners (ASBEC) relating to absentee voters. The circuit court declared (1) the emergency rules were derivative of Act 595 of 2013, which amended the Arkansas election code to require that voters provide proof of identity when voting; (2) the Act was unconstitutional; and (3) the emergency rules were also unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly ruled that the rules relating to absentee voters promulgated by the ASBEC were unconstitutional; but (2) the circuit court erred in declaring the Act unconstitutional, as that issue was not pled or developed before the court. View "State Bd. of Election Comm'rs v. Pulaski County Election Comm’n" on Justia Law

In a consolidated ballot title case, three sets of petitioners have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the ballot title for Initiative Petition 58. Initiative Petition 58 (IP 58), essentially identical to Initiative Petition 47 (IP 47), would change the way that liquor is sold in Oregon by “eliminat[ing] the current system of state-licensed liquor stores” and allowing "'holders of distilled liquor self-distribution permits' (essentially wholesalers) to distribute liquor to 'qualified retailers,' who would, in turn, sell the liquor to the public." The Attorney General certified the ballot title for IP 58 before we issued the Supreme Court issued its opinion regarding IP 47, and two petitioners argued that the phrase "wholesale sales tax" did not avoid the problem that the Court noted in the IP 47 opinion. As noted in the IP 47 case, the phrase “sales tax” had more potential to confuse voters than to describe IP 47, and by extension IP 58, accurately. "[W]e cannot overlook [petitioners'] point that the phrase 'sales tax' is so commonly associated with a tax imposed at the point of a retail sale that the use of the phrase 'wholesale sales tax' may do more to confuse matters than clarify them." Accordingly, the Court referred the ballot title for IP 58 back to the Attorney General for modification. View "McCann v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

After the person elected in 2012 to the office of County Sheriff could not assume the office for health reasons, County Commissioners appointed Relator as acting Sheriff until someone could be appointed to occupy the office. The County Democratic Central Committee (DCC) appointed Respondent to occupy the office. Relator filed this original action in quo warranto, claiming that Respondent did not meet the qualifications to assume the office of Sheriff. Relator asserted that he had standing to bring this action because he remained acting Sheriff. The Supreme Court granted the writ and reinstated Relator as acting County Sheriff until the DCC could appoint a qualified person, holding (1) Relator had standing to bring this action in quo warranto; and (2) Respondent failed to meet the statutory qualifications to be a County Sheriff.View "State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed a petition for extraordinary writ relief concerning certain documents in the possession of Respondents, non-parties to litigation regarding the constitutional validity of the 2012 plan apportioning Florida’s congressional districts under the Fair Districts Amendments. Petitioners contended that the documents demonstrated “the surreptitious participation of partisan operatives in the apportionment process," but the First District Court of Appeal precluded the admission of the documents. The Supreme Court granted relief to Petitioners and stayed the enforcement of the First District’s order, holding that the circuit court was not precluded from admitting the documents into evidence, subject to a proper showing of relevancy, but that the court must maintain the confidentiality of the documents by permitting disclosure or use only under seal in a courtroom closed to the public. View "League of Women Voters v. Data Targeting, Inc." on Justia Law

John Kelly petitioned the circuit court for issuance of a writ of mandamus and for declaratory judgment, asserting that Judge Timothy Fox was ineligible to be a candidate for the position of circuit judge in the election for the judgeship scheduled to be conducted on May 20, 2014 because he was delinquent in the payment of his licensing fee in 2013, and therefore, he was not a “licensed attorney” for the six years immediately preceding the date of assuming office, as constitutionally mandated. The circuit court denied relief, finding that although Fox had been suspended for being delinquent on his annual license fee, this did not constitute a revocation or termination of his license, and therefore, Fox was an eligible candidate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even though Fox failed to pay his annual license fee for forty-five days in 2013, he remained a licensed attorney during the period of delinquency because his license was not terminated and his name was not removed from the list of licensed attorneys; and (2) therefore, the circuit court correctly found that Fox was eligible to be a candidate for the position of circuit judge. View "Kelly v. Martin" on Justia Law

North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2, which would have abolished property taxes, was disapproved by the voters in the June 2012 primary election. Empower the Taxpayer ("Empower"), Charlene Nelson, and Robert Hale supported Measure 2. Before the election, Empower, Nelson, and Hale brought this action against numerous state and local government officials and other entities alleging violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, and sought injunctive relief, including prohibiting the defendants from "advocating any position on Measure 2" and declaring the defendants "no longer eligible to run for public office." The County Defendants sought sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorney under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11, alleging the action against them was frivolous and that it had been brought for an improper purpose. The action was ultimately dismissed by the district court, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. After the action was dismissed, the district court considered the County Defendants' motion for sanctions, concluding a competent attorney could not in good faith have believed that a cause of action existed against the County Defendants. The court therefore ordered reasonable attorney fees and costs for defending against the action and that the plaintiffs prepare a written retraction of their allegations of corruption and impropriety to be published in the major newspapers of the state. Upon review of the sanctions issue, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's orders did not provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision; the Court was unable to adequately understand the basis for the court's decision to review on appeal. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded to the district court to clarify its opinion. View "Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong" on Justia Law

Respondent, a candidate for county probate judge, was found to have violated former Jud. Cond. R. 4.4(E) for having received campaign contributions from judicial fundraising events during the judicial campaign that categorized or identified participants by the amount of the contribution made to the event. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended that no disciplinary sanction be imposed but that Respondent be ordered to pay the costs and a portion of the complainant's attorney fees. A commission of five judges appointed by the Supreme Court upheld that panel's judgment and ordered Respondent to pay a $1,000 fine, the costs of the proceeding, and a greater portion of attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent did not knowingly violate Jud. Cond. R. 4.4(E) and, even if Respondent's conduct constituted a technical violation of the rule, no sanction would be warranted in this case.View "In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Stormer" on Justia Law

In June 2013, in Pueblo and El Paso County citizens certified petitions to recall State Senator Angela Giron and State Senator John Morse. A month later, the Governor set a September 10 recall election for both Senate seats. This recall election was the first in Colorado's history for members of the General Assembly. The Governor then submitted an Interrogatory to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article VI, section 3,of the Colorado Constitution to ask whether the prior participation requirement in Article XXI, section 3, of the Colorado Constitution conflicted with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Colorado Court issued an Order holding that the prior participation requirement in Article XXI, section 3, conflicted with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. View "In re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Hickenlooper" on Justia Law

Darrita Davis, a qualified elector in Summit County and a resident of Akron Ward 10, submitted a nominating petition on July 2, 2013 to run as an independent candidate in the November 5, 2013 general election to represent Ward 10 on the Akron City Council. The Summit County Board of Elections determined Davis's petition to be invalid on the basis that Davis was not an independent because she failed to disaffiliate sufficiently from the Democratic Party. Davis sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to place her name on the ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Davis established her entitlement to extraordinary relief.View "State ex rel. Davis v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law