A group called Move to Amend Salt Lake submitted a petition for certification of an initiative petition for placement on the local election ballot. Salt Lake City informed Move to Amend that their petition would not be placed on the ballot because it did not qualify as a proper initiative. Plaintiff, a registered voter in the City, filed a petition for extraordinary relief, asking the Supreme Court to compel the City Recorder to place the initiative on the City's November 2012 ballot, and to declare that the power of popular initiative encompasses initiatives that are purely advisory. The Supreme Court denied the petition for extraordinary relief, holding that the power of popular initiative in Utah does not encompass initiatives that are purely advisory. View "Proulx v. Salt Lake City Recorder" on Justia Law

CFIF and WVFL are 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4) organizations that engage in election-related speech. These organizations and an individual brought suit alleging that West Virginia's campaign finance statutes were constitutionally impermissible. At issue was whether West Virginia's campaign-finance reporting and disclaimer requirements could survive constitutional scrutiny, West Virginia Code section 3-8-1 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's decisions to (1) strike "newspaper, magazine or other periodical" from West Virginia's "electioneering communication" definition; (2) upheld the "electioneering communication" definition's exemption for grassroots lobbying; (3) declined to consider the merits of the CFIF's challenge to the bona fide news account exemption because the organization lacked standing; and (4) prohibited prosecutions for violations that occurred while the earlier injunctions were in effect. However, the court reversed the district court's decision with respect to (1) its conclusion that subsection (C) of the "expressly advocating" definition was unconstitutional; (2) its choice to uphold the "electioneering communication" definition's section 501(c)(3) exemption; and (3) its application of an "earmarked funds" limiting construction to the reporting requirement for electioneering communications. Because WVFL did not file a notice of appeal in this case, the court could not consider its challenge to the district court's finding that the statutory scheme's twenty-four- and forty-eight-hour reporting requirements were constitutional. Consequently, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Center for Individual Freedom v. Tennant, et al." on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Chancellor correctly interpreted 15 Del. C. Sec. 3306, which allows political parties to replace candidates who become incapacitated. The Court held that under the statute, the term "incapacity" includes situations where a candidate would be practically incapable of fulfilling the duties of office in a minimally adequate way. In determining whether the standard was met, the Chancellor could consider events that occurred after the candidate withdrew. In this case, the Court concluded the withdrawing candidate was incapacitated and therefore affirmed the Court of Chancery's judgment. View "Sussex County Dept. of Elections, et al. v. Sussex County Republican Committee, et al." on Justia Law

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Brunswick City Council removed Appellant, a city council member, from office for violating section 3.05(b) of the Brunswick Charter. Afterwards, Appellee was appointed to fill the vacancy created by Appellant's removal. Appellant filed an administrative appeal from the city council's decision, and the court of common pleas affirmed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal based on mootness. Before the common pleas court decided his administrative appeal, Appellant filed a writ of quo warranto requesting that Appellee be ousted and that he be restored to the office of council member. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested extraordinary relief in quo warranto. View "State ex rel. Capretta v. Zamiska" on Justia Law

This was an election contest regarding the office of state representative. Joshua O'Farrell and Al Landis were the candidates. After the general election, the county board of elections declared that Landis had defeated O'Farrell by fourteen votes. After an automatic recount was conducted, the county board of elections declared that Landis had defeated O'Farrell by eight votes. O'Farrell subsequently filed this case contesting the election. O'Farrell moved for an order to hand-count or permit inspection of thirteen ballots, which the chief justice denied. O'Farrell then moved the Supreme Court for an order compelling production of the ballots, to extend the deadline by which to submit evidence, and for leave to file a motion to supplement the motion to compel. The Court denied the motions after noting that O'Farrell would have the opportunity to present his arguments for a recount or visual inspection to the House of Representatives when the election petition was before that body, holding that because O'Farrell had not identified a genuine election irregularity in his petition, a visual inspection or production of the ballots to support that count was not justified at this time. View "O'Farrell v. Landis" on Justia Law

PG sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of 25 Pa. Stat. 3060(d), a portion of the Pennsylvania Election Code mandating that all persons, except election officers, clerks, machine inspectors, overseers, watchers, persons in the course of voting, persons lawfully giving assistance to voters, and peace and police officers, when permitted by the provisions of this act, must remain at least ten (10) feet distant from the polling place during the progress of the voting. PG claimed that the statute infringed on its First Amendment “right to access and gather news at polling places” and that selective enforcement violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. There is no protected First Amendment right of access to a polling place for news-gathering purposes and there was no evidence of “invidious intent” or intentional discrimination. View "PG Publ'g Co. v. Aichele" on Justia Law

Township, located in County, decided to place a tax levy for fire protection and emergency medical services in excess of the ten-mill limitation on the February 5, 2013 special-election ballot. The board of Township trustees adopted a resolution declaring it necessary to levy the additional levy and determined to proceed to have the tax question submitted to Township electors. The County board of elections voted unanimously to deny certification of the levy on the February 5, 2013 special-election ballot, determining that Township failed to submit the documents for the levy by the 4:00 p.m. deadline on November 7, 2012. On December 12, 2012, the Township board of trustees filed this expedited election action for writ of mandamus to compel the County board of elections to place the levy on the special-election ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the board of elections abused its discretion by refusing to place the levy on the ballot, where the fact that the resolution was time-stamped two minutes late harmed no one's rights, and that the people of Township should have the opportunity to determine whether the cuts to safety services that would occur without a levy are acceptable. View "State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Del. County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in these consolidated cases concerned the actions of the title setting board (Title Board) in setting the titles and ballot titles and submission clauses (or titles) in two groups of initiatives. In case 12SA117, Petitioner Philip Hayes challenged the Title Board's title setting for Initiatives 2011-2012, Numbers 67, 68 and 69. Respondents David Ottke and John Slota were the designated representatives for those proposed initiatives. If adopted, the initiatives would alter how the General Assembly amended or repealed citizen-initiated statutes. In Case 12SA130, Petitioners Barbara Walker and Don Childears challenged the Title Board's title setting for Initiative 201-2012 Number 94 and 95. Respondents Earl Staelin and Robert Bows were the designated representatives. If adopted, Initiative 94 would have amended the Colorado constitution to allow political subdivisions to establish and operate banks; Initiative 95 would have allowed the State to open and operate its own bank. The common threshold question before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether the Title Board had authority to act on motions for rehearing to address challenges to the titles previously set, where fewer than both of the designated representatives of the initiative's proponents appeared at the rehearing. Finding no statutory authority that conferred such authority to the Title Board, the Supreme Court reversed the actions of the Title Board and returned the measures to the Title Board for further proceedings. View "Hayes v. Ottke" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the Democratic party candidate for the office of state representative, district 47, in the November 6, 2012 general election. After the election results showed Plaintiff had lost the election, Plaintiff challenged the results by filing a complaint in the Supreme Court against her opponent Richard Fale, BYU-Hawai'i, the Polynesia Cultural Center, Hawai'i Reserves, Inc., and a newspaper writer, alleging that Fale received more votes because several defendants conspired to throw the electoral process. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiff could prove no set of facts entitling her to relief, as none of Plaintiff's allegations related to her perceived inequities in the campaign process satisfied her burden of demonstrating errors that would change the outcome of the election for house of representatives, district 47. View "Beirne v. Fale " on Justia Law

Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG), a Utah political action committee, advanced a petition for an initiative to be included in the 2010 statewide general election. Ultimately, UEG's efforts to qualify for the 2010 ballot were unsuccessful. Yet UEG continued collecting additional signatures thereafter, using the same petition targeting 2010. The lieutenant governor subsequently determined that UEG's initiative did not qualify for the 2012 ballot, reasoning that the initiative petition it advanced applied only to the 2010 ballot. UEG then filed suit, seeking a court order compelling placement of its proposed initiative on the 2012 ballot. After UEG's efforts at the district court proved unsuccessful, UEG appealed and petitioned the Supreme Court for extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court denied UEG the relief it sought, holding that UEG was not entitled to have its initiative included on the 2012 ballot because it did not meet its burden of demonstrating that its initiative qualified for the 2012 ballot. View "Utahns for Ethical Gov't v. Bell" on Justia Law