Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

A nonprofit organization based in Virginia, which advocates for election integrity, requested access to South Carolina’s statewide voter registration list from the state’s Election Commission. The request was made under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which generally requires states to make certain records about voter list maintenance available for public inspection and copying. South Carolina’s Election Commission denied the request, citing a state law that restricts disclosure of the voter list to individuals registered to vote within the state. The nonprofit responded by notifying the Election Commission that this refusal violated the NVRA and, after receiving a reiteration of the Commission’s position, filed a federal lawsuit seeking disclosure of the list.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina reviewed the case. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the nonprofit, concluding that the NVRA requires disclosure of the voter list and preempts the conflicting state law. The district court ordered the Election Commission to disclose the list. The Election Commission then moved for reconsideration, but the district court denied this motion. The Election Commission appealed both the grant of summary judgment and the denial of reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. On appeal, the Election Commission argued for the first time that the nonprofit lacked Article III standing to sue under the NVRA. The Fourth Circuit held that standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue and that the record lacked sufficient factual findings on standing, as the issue was not previously addressed in the district court. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the nonprofit has standing to bring the suit. The merits of the case were not addressed on appeal. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Wooten" on Justia Law

An attorney who chaired the Davidson County Election Commission was also employed at a law firm that represented the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. The Election Commission became involved in a dispute over whether a citizen-initiated tax-repeal referendum should be placed on the ballot, a measure opposed by the city government and certain city council members. The attorney, acting as commission chair, supported certifying the referendum. Following pressure from city officials, including a council member who threatened to withdraw city business from the law firm if the attorney continued supporting the referendum, the law firm terminated the attorney’s employment after he refused to change his position.The attorney filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, asserting violations of his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other claims. The district court denied motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity filed by both the council member and the law firm. The court concluded that the council member’s alleged conduct violated clearly established First Amendment law and that the law firm, as a private entity, was not entitled to qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that both the council member and the law firm were eligible to assert qualified immunity due to their public functions in this context. The court held that the council member was not entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint plausibly alleged he violated clearly established First Amendment rights by causing the attorney’s firing due to protected speech. However, the court found that the law firm was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established law prohibiting a law firm from firing an employee in response to client pressure under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the council member, reversed as to the law firm, and remanded for further proceedings. View "DeLanis v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville" on Justia Law

In August 2022, the appellants filed a complaint and petition in Rice County District Court, seeking to prevent the use of electronic voting machines with embedded modems in the upcoming November 2022 general election. They alleged that these machines were not properly certified or secure, in violation of Minnesota law, and requested an order restraining the county from using the modem functions during the election. The complaint named the Director of Rice County Property Tax and Elections as a defendant, and the Minnesota Secretary of State intervened as a party.The Rice County District Court dismissed the section 204B.44 claim in January 2023, citing several jurisdictional defects, including mootness because the 2022 election had already occurred, and insufficient service of process on all candidates as required by statute. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, focusing on the lack of service to all candidates as the basis for its decision and did not address the other grounds identified by the district court.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the appellants’ claim under Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44 was moot because the relief sought pertained solely to the 2022 general election, which had already taken place. The court rejected the argument that the claim could be redirected to future elections and clarified that section 204B.44 challenges must be specific to a single election. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, but did so on the alternative ground of mootness, without reaching the issue of service of process on all candidates. View "Benda for Common-sense vs. Anderson" on Justia Law

In 2009, Arkansas enacted a law limiting the number of voters one person could assist to six, with violations classified as misdemeanors. Arkansas United, a non-profit organization, and its founder, L. Mireya Reith, challenged this law, arguing it conflicted with Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which allows voters needing assistance to choose anyone to help them, except their employer or union representative.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas denied an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order but later granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, enjoining the enforcement of the six-voter limit. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs. The State sought and obtained a stay of the injunction from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, allowing the six-voter limit to remain in effect for the 2022 General Election.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Section 208 of the VRA does not create a private right of action. The court found that enforcement of Section 208 is intended to be carried out by the Attorney General, not private parties. The court also rejected the argument that the Supremacy Clause provided a basis for a private right of action. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs, vacated the permanent injunction and the award of attorney fees and costs, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Arkansas United v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The case involves the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filing a two-count complaint against Jocelyn Benson, the Michigan Secretary of State, alleging non-compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). PILF claimed that Michigan failed to conduct proper maintenance of voter registration lists by not removing deceased registrants and did not allow inspection of public records related to voter rolls. PILF's requests for records and subsequent correspondence with the Secretary of State's office did not yield the desired information, leading to the lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Secretary Benson. The court found that Michigan's efforts to maintain voter registration lists, including using state and federal death records and collaborating with the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), constituted a reasonable effort under the NVRA. The court also found that PILF's claim regarding the failure to allow inspection of records was moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, agreeing that Michigan's program for removing deceased registrants was reasonable under the NVRA. The court noted that the NVRA requires a reasonable effort, not a perfect one, and that Michigan's multi-layered approach met this standard. The court also found that PILF lacked standing to assert its claim regarding the inspection of records, as it failed to demonstrate concrete downstream consequences from the alleged NVRA violation.In conclusion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Michigan's efforts to maintain accurate voter registration lists were reasonable and that PILF did not have standing to pursue its claim regarding the inspection of records. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) requested records from the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). PILF sought documents related to a "glitch" in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's system that allowed ineligible persons to register to vote. The Secretary denied the request, leading PILF to file a lawsuit claiming an informational injury due to the denial of access to the records.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania initially dismissed the suit for lack of statutory notice but found that PILF had standing based on an informational injury. After PILF provided the required notice and refiled the suit, the District Court granted and denied parts of both parties' summary judgment motions, ruling that PILF was entitled to some records but not others. The District Court did not reassess PILF's standing in light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that PILF lacked standing. The court held that PILF did not demonstrate a concrete harm or adverse effects from the denial of information, as required by TransUnion. The court emphasized that PILF's inability to study and analyze the records or produce educational materials did not constitute a concrete injury related to the NVRA's purpose of increasing voter participation. Consequently, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's orders and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. View "The Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Arizona district court challenging the state's voting system, claiming it did not adequately protect voters' rights and should be replaced with a hand-counted paper ballot system. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Subsequently, the district court imposed sanctions on the plaintiffs' attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz, for filing a frivolous complaint.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and granted the defendants' motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The district court found that the complaint contained false and misleading statements and ordered the plaintiffs' attorneys to pay a portion of the defendants' legal fees. Dershowitz, who signed the complaint as "of counsel," was held jointly and severally liable for a portion of the sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's holding that "of counsel" attorneys can be sanctioned under Rule 11 for signing frivolous complaints. The Ninth Circuit rejected Dershowitz's argument that the sanctions violated the First Amendment and found that the district court imposed sanctions to deter frivolous actions, not to silence speech. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the imposition of sanctions on Dershowitz, as the liability of "of counsel" attorneys under Rule 11 had not been clearly articulated in previous case law. The court declined to apply the rule retroactively but stated that it would apply to any signed pleadings after the publication of this opinion. View "Lake v. Gates" on Justia Law

The incumbent candidate, Vern Gavin, lost the election to challenger Wanda Evers. Gavin filed a petition for judicial review in the Hinds County Circuit Court, claiming Evers was an unqualified elector due to her residency outside the district and citing several voting irregularities. The circuit court granted summary judgment on the election irregularities and dismissed the residency claim under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Gavin's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to his appeal.The Hinds County Circuit Court initially reviewed the case. Gavin challenged Evers's residency, noting her voting address was transferred outside the district and back within it, and she claimed a homestead exemption at a Jackson address. The Hinds County Executive Committee certified Evers as a candidate despite Gavin's challenge. Evers defeated Gavin in the runoff election. Gavin filed a contest of the election and a petition for judicial review, requesting a special election due to alleged irregularities and disputing Evers's residency qualification. The circuit court granted summary judgment on the election irregularities and dismissed the residency claim, finding Evers met the two-year residency requirement.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court's rulings, finding no error. The court held that Gavin received proper notice of the summary judgment motion and that the circuit court did not err in considering both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment. The court also upheld the exclusion of certain affidavits as hearsay and irrelevant. The court found that Gavin failed to present evidence of election irregularities affecting the outcome and that Evers met the residency requirement. The court also affirmed the denial of Gavin's motion for reconsideration, finding the new evidence presented was cumulative and for impeachment purposes only. View "Gavin v. Evers" on Justia Law

Kenneth Brown filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) alleging that the in-person absentee voting procedures in Racine during the August 2022 primary election violated the law. Brown observed voting at City Hall and a local mall and believed the procedures were unlawful. WEC found no probable cause of a violation and declined to take action. Brown then appealed WEC’s decision to the Racine County Circuit Court.The circuit court determined that Brown had standing to bring the action, as the alleged invalid voting procedures impacted his right to vote. The court partially ruled in Brown’s favor, concluding that the Racine City Clerk’s choice of alternate voting sites violated statutory requirements and that the use of a mobile election unit was unlawful. WEC sought to appeal this decision, and the case was brought before the Wisconsin Supreme Court via a bypass petition.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether Brown had standing to seek judicial review of WEC’s decision. The court interpreted Wisconsin Statute § 5.06(8), which allows for appeals from WEC’s decisions, and determined that to be “aggrieved” by a decision, an individual must suffer an injury to a legally recognized interest. The court found that Brown did not demonstrate any personal injury resulting from WEC’s decision, as he did not allege that the decision made it more difficult for him to vote or affected him personally.The court held that Brown was not “aggrieved” within the meaning of the statute and therefore did not have standing to seek judicial review. Consequently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Brown’s complaint. View "Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

Appellant Charles E. Wilson filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia Board of Elections, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, and the District of Columbia, challenging the proposed ballot Initiative 83, also known as the “Make All Votes Count Act of 2024.” Wilson objected to the initiative’s summary statement, short title, and legislative form, and raised several challenges to the Board’s determination that the initiative was a “proper subject” for an initiative. The initiative, which proposed ranked-choice voting and changes to primary election rules, was approved by voters on November 5, 2024.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed Wilson’s complaint, ruling it was untimely because it was filed the day before the ten-day period described in D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(e)(1)(A) began. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the complaint was not filed within the specified timeframe.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that the ten-day period described in Subsection (e)(1)(A) is a claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional rule. The court determined that the ten-day period is a deadline by which any suit must be filed, rather than a time window during which a suit must be brought. The court also held that the Superior Court had general equity jurisdiction to hear Wilson’s substantive challenges to the Board’s “proper subject” determination. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the Mayor and the District of Columbia, as they were not proper defendants in this case.The Court of Appeals vacated the Superior Court’s order dismissing the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings to address Wilson’s claims against the Board of Elections. View "Wilson v. Bowser" on Justia Law