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 If adopted, the initiatives would alter how the General Assembly amended or repealed citizen-initiated statutes.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

Appellants Vicki Parker, James Johnson, and Marie Clarke appealed a superior court order directly to the Supreme Court. The lower court's order denied them relief in an action challenging the candidacy of Christine Schaller for the office of judge of the Thurston County Superior Court. Appellants argued that Schaller was not statutorily eligible for the office because she did not reside in, and therefore was not a qualified elector of, Thurston County. Upon review, the Court held that Schaller was not required to reside in or be an elector of Thurston County to be eligible for the office. View "Parker v. Wyman" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought an order requiring that Respondents, the St. Louis County Auditor and the Minnesota Secretary of State, place Erik Simonson's name on the ballot for the 2012 general election as the candidate for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party for the office of State Representative for House District 7B. Petitioners contended that the County Auditor erred by refusing to accept the affidavit of withdrawal submitted by DFL-nominated candidate Kerry Gauthier and affidavit of candidacy submitted by newly nominated DFL candidate Simonson for the general election in District 7B. The Supreme Court concluded that Minnesota law required Simonson's name to be placed on the November 2012 ballot by order filed in September 2012, with this opinion to follow, holding (1) a major political party has statutory authority to fill a vacancy in nomination for a partisan office that was caused by the withdrawal of its originally nominated candidate after the primary, as long as the originally nominated candidate complied with the procedures for filing an affidavit of withdrawal; and (2) the County Auditor erred when he rejected the affidavit of withdrawal that Gauthier attempted to file and the certificate of nomination listing Simonson as the DFL-nominated candidate that the DFL attempted to file. View "Martin v. Dicklich" on Justia Law

In Martin v. Dicklich, the Supreme Court ordered the Saint Louis County Auditor to replace the name of Kerry Gauthier with the name of Erik Simonson as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (FL) endorsed candidate for state representative, House District 7B, on the November 2012 general election ballot. Jay Fosle, who had previously declared his write-in candidacy for state representative, District 7B, was not served with a copy of the Martin petition. Fosle subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to order that his name also be placed on the November 2012 ballot either as the "Independent candidate" or without party affiliation. The Supreme Court denied Fosle's petition by order filed in October 2012, with this opinion to follow, holding that there was no statutory or other basis on which to grant the relief Fosle sought here. View "Fosle v. Ritchie" on Justia Law

Minor political parties sought ballot access (Green Party of Tennessee and Constitution Party of Tennessee) and sued, alleging that requirements to qualify for the Tennessee ballot as a “recognized minor party” were overly restrictive and impermissibly burdened First Amendment rights and were unconstitutionally vague and constituted improper delegation of legislative authority; that provisions governing the order in which political parties are listed on the general-election ballot violate the Equal Protection Clause; and that prohibition on the use of the words “independent” and “nonpartisan” in minor-party names contravenes the First Amendment. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on all claims, enjoined enforcement, ordered that the plaintiffs be placed on the November 2012 ballot, and directed the state to conduct random drawing to determine the order in which each party would appear on the ballot. The Sixth Circuit granted a stay with respect to the random-public-drawing. In the meantime, the Tennessee General Assembly amended some, but not all, of the invalidated provisions, relaxing the requirements. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the district court erred on some claims, that some claims were moot, and that the trial court should initially determine the validity of the amendments. View "Green Party of TN v. Hargett" on Justia Law

Lessadolla Sowers was convicted in the Tunica County Circuit Court of ten counts of voter fraud as a habitual offender. Mississippi Bureau of Investigations officers determined that a significant number of absentee ballots had been mailed to a post office box held in Sowers's name. She was sentenced to five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections for each count, with each sentence ordered to run concurrently with the others. Sowers appealed, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to sustain the jury's verdicts of guilt on the ten counts of voter fraud and her habitual-offender status. Finding otherwise, the Supreme Court affirmed Sowers's convictions and sentence. View "Sowers v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

This was an original action challenging the decennial apportionment of districts in the General Assembly. At issue was whether the 2011 apportionment plan adopted by the apportionment board (Respondents) complied with Ohio Const. art. XI, 7 and 11. The Supreme Court denied Relators' request for declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that Relators failed to adduce sufficient, credible proof to rebut the presumed constitutionality accorded the 2011 apportionment plan by establishing that the plan was unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, Relators were not entitled to a declaration that the 2011 apportionment plan was unconstitutional or a prohibitory injunction to prevent elections from being conducted in accordance with that plan. View "Wilson v. Kasich" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory ruling that Mont. Code Ann. 13-35-227(1) violated their constitutional rights to free speech by prohibiting political expenditures by corporations on behalf of or opposing candidates for public office. Plaintiffs argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC barred Montana from prohibiting independent and indirect corporate expenditures on political speech, and that Montana's century-old ban on independent corporate expenditures therefore was invalid. The district court granted ATP's motion for summary judgment on the merits of its constitutional claim, declared section 13-35-227(1) unconstitutional, and denied ATP's request for attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding (1) the statute was constitutional; and (2) Plaintiffs' cross-appeal on the attorneys' fee issue, therefore, was moot. The Court's decision thereafter was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Montana Supreme Court then returned to ATP's cross-appeal on the issue of attorneys' fees and affirmed the district court's order declining to award attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs, holding that equitable considerations did not require the district court to award fees against the State under either the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act or the private attorney general doctrine. View "W. Tradition P'ship, Inc. v. Attorney Gen." on Justia Law