The Supreme Court issued an order remanding a proposed redistricting plan to the redistricting board with instructions to formulate a new plan in compliance with state case law. Upon remand, the board was instructed to follow a certain process so that the Court could appropriately judge whether its violations of the Alaska Constitution were absolutely necessary for compliance with federal law. The board then submitted a modified plan to the superior court that changed four of forty house districts from the original plan. The amended plan was rejected by the superior court because the board failed to follow the process mandated by the Supreme Court. The board petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the superior court's conclusion on the amended plan. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the board again failed to follow the process the Court ordered on remand, and affirmed the decision of the superior court and required the board to draft a new plan for the 2014 elections. View "In Re 2011 Redistricting Cases" on Justia Law

Governor Strickland appointed Terry to fill a vacancy on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Terry sought reelection to retain the seat and enlisted the help of County Auditor Russo, a presence in Cleveland politics. The FBI was investigating Russo and had tapped his phones. Russo had a phone conversation with an attorney about foreclosure cases on Terry’s docket and promised to make sure Terry did what he was “supposed to do.” Later, by phone, Russo told Terry to deny motions for summary judgment. Terry said he would and did so. Russo ultimately pled guilty to 21political corruption counts and received a 262-month prison sentence. Terry was convicted of conspiring with Russo to commit mail fraud and honest services fraud; and honest services fraud by accepting things of value from Russo and others in exchange for favorable official action, 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2).. The district court sentenced him to 63 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, quoting once-Speaker of the California General Assembly, Jesse Unruh, “If you can’t eat [lobbyists’] food, drink their booze, . . . take their money and then vote against them, you’ve got no business being [in politics],” View "United States v. Terry" on Justia Law

In 2007, Petitioners Curtis Vagneur and Jeffrey Evans submitted two initiative petitions to the Aspen City Clerk regarding the highway entrance to Aspen. Respondents Les Holst, Clifford Weiss, and Terry Paulson filed objections to the petitions. Following a hearing, an administrative hearing officer determined that the proposed initiatives sought to ask electors of Aspen to vote on a change on use of open space to authorize a different entrance to Aspen, to mandate design specifics for that roadway, and to mandate the amendment or rescinding of existing documents previously authorized by the City Council that conflicted with conditions of the proposed roadway. The hearing officer concluded that the initiatives were "improper subjects of the initiative process." The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the initiatives were administrative in nature, and therefore outside the initiative process. The Court concluded that the proposed initiatives were indeed administrative in nature and were therefore not a proper exercise of the people's initiative power. The Court affirmed the hearing officer and the court of appeals. View "Vagneur v. City of Aspen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the secretary of state, filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Wyoming's term limit statute. Plaintiff contended that the statute was prevented from exercising his constitutional right to seek a third term as secretary of state. The State retorted that Plaintiff's complaint did not present a justiciable controversy and, in any event, the statute was constitutional. The Supreme Court accepted certification of the issues from the district court and held (1) Plaintiff's complaint satisfied the four elements necessary to establish a justiciable controversy; and (2) the statute limiting the term limit for statewide elected officials is unconstitutional with respect to the offices of secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and superintendent of public instruction, and the qualifications for those offices provided by the Wyoming Constitution are exclusive. View "Maxfield v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, a Nevada political action committee, sought to enact a law through Nevada's ballot initiative process to provide a new funding sources for the state's public school K-12 education need. The proposed law, entitled "The Education Initiative" would impose a two-percent margin tax on all Nevada businesses with annual revenue of more than $1 million. Respondent filed a complaint challenging the Initiative. After finding that Initiative's description of effect was misleading, the district court granted the requested relief in part by enjoining the Secretary of State from presenting the Initiative to the Legislature. The Supreme Court reversed in part the district court's order invalidating the Initiative, holding that the description of effect at issue in this case satisfied the requirement that the description contain a straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative statement of what the Initiative will accomplish and how it will achieve those goals. View "Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nev. Jobs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the State could directly enforce Article I, section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution to prevent a candidate from taking public office without regard to the Election Code's lime limits on challenges to candidacy. Answering in the affirmative, the Court reversed the appellate court's ruling and reinstated the trial court's ruling. View "Louisiana v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suits challenging the constitutionality of recently enacted redistricting plans and seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from conducting elections using the redistricting plans. Plaintiffs requested from Defendants a variety of communications concerning enactment of the redistricting plans. Defendants objected to the production of certain categories of documents based upon the attorney-client privilege, legislative privilege, or work-product doctrine. Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production. A three-judge panel allowed the motion and also concluded that any documents prepared solely in connection with redistricting litigation remain confidential pursuant to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the panel's conclusion of law that the General Assembly waived the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine for pre-enactment communications and documents pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 120-133; but (2) affirmed the panel's conclusion that the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine apply to relevant post-enactment communications and documents. View "Dickson v. Rucho" on Justia Law

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