Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Arizona Abortion Access Act Initiative I-05-2024, which appeared on the November 5, 2024, general election ballot. The Legislative Council prepared an analysis of the initiative, which included a description of existing state law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, except in medical emergencies. The analysis used the term "unborn human being" to describe the existing law, which the initiative's proponents argued was not impartial and requested the term "fetus" be used instead.The Superior Court in Maricopa County ruled in favor of the initiative's proponents, finding that the term "unborn human being" was emotionally and partisanly charged, and ordered the Council to replace it with a neutral term. The Council members appealed the decision, arguing that the analysis was impartial and complied with statutory requirements.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's ruling. The Court held that the analysis substantially complied with the statutory requirement for impartiality by accurately describing existing law using the precise terminology found in the statute. The Court emphasized that the term "unborn human being" is used in the existing law and that the analysis provided necessary background information to voters. The Court concluded that the analysis was impartial and did not advocate for or against the initiative. The request for attorney fees and costs by the initiative's proponents was denied. View "ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS v MONTENEGRO" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Beth Cummings and Dena Burnham Johnson, filed a petition to annul or void an election that provided additional funds for the Great Falls Public Library. They alleged discrepancies in the election process, including a mathematical error in the ballot and a lack of clear information provided to voters. The election, held in June 2023, resulted in the approval of a mill levy increase to support the library.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Montana dismissed the plaintiffs' petition under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally cognizable claim. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations did not demonstrate a violation of their constitutional rights to suffrage or due process. The court also noted that the mathematical error on the ballot was minor and did not mislead voters to the extent that it would invalidate the election results. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiffs' claims of election law violations were not applicable to the mill levy election.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs' right of suffrage was not violated, as they were not prevented from voting and were not misled by the ballot language. The court also concluded that the due process claim was unfounded, as the election process and materials provided sufficient information to voters. Furthermore, the court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs' claims under state election laws were not relevant to the mill levy election.The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their petition, finding that the proposed amendments would be futile and would cause substantial prejudice to the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' additional legal arguments did not present a valid controversy and that the defendants had already expended significant resources in the case. View "Cummings v. Kelly" on Justia Law

On December 9, 2021, the New York City Council passed a bill amending the New York City Charter to allow lawful permanent residents to vote in municipal elections. The bill became effective on January 9, 2022, as Local Law 11, after both outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio and incoming Mayor Eric Adams neither signed nor vetoed it. Local Law 11 permitted certain noncitizens to vote in elections for New York City offices such as Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council Member.Plaintiffs, including current and former elected officials and New York City registered voters, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Council, Mayor Eric Adams, and the New York City Board of Elections. They sought to declare Local Law 11 null and void, arguing it violated the New York State Constitution, the New York State Election Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on all grounds, declaring Local Law 11 unconstitutional and enjoining its implementation. The Appellate Division modified the judgment regarding the Election Law claim but otherwise affirmed the decision, with one justice dissenting. The City Council and intervenors appealed to the Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals held that Article II, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution restricts voting to citizens, thus invalidating Local Law 11. The court found that the Constitution's language and historical context clearly limit the right to vote to U.S. citizens. The court rejected arguments that Article IX of the Constitution, which grants home rule powers to local governments, overrides this restriction. Consequently, the Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division's order and, as modified, affirmed the decision, maintaining the invalidation of Local Law 11. View "Fossella v Adams" on Justia Law

A voter in Sarasota County, Florida, who is not affiliated with any political party, challenged Florida's closed primary election system. He argued that the system forces him to either join a political party to have a meaningful vote or forfeit his right to vote in primary elections, which he claimed was unconstitutional. The district court dismissed his case, concluding that he lacked standing and failed to state a claim for relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the voter had standing to sue the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections because his exclusion from primary elections was traceable to the Supervisor and could be redressed by a court order. However, the court determined that the voter lacked standing to sue the Florida Secretary of State, as the Secretary did not have direct control over the Supervisor's actions.On the merits, the court applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the voter's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court concluded that the burdens imposed by Florida's closed primary system on the voter's rights were minimal. The court found that the state's interests in preserving political parties as viable and identifiable interest groups and enhancing candidates' electioneering efforts outweighed the minimal burdens on the voter's rights.The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the claims against the Florida Secretary of State without prejudice and to dismiss the claims against the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections with prejudice. View "Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State" on Justia Law

Robin M. McNabb, a former Municipal Court Judge for Lenoir City, filed an election contest against Gregory H. Harrison, who won the election for the same position in 2022. McNabb argued that Harrison was ineligible to serve because he had not resided within the Lenoir City corporate limits for the year preceding the election, as required by Article VI, Section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution.The Chancery Court for Loudon County found that the term "district" in Article VI, Section 4 referred to the modern-day judicial district. Since Harrison resided in the Ninth Judicial District, the court ruled him eligible to serve. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but modified the judgment, stating that "district" referred to Loudon County, not the Ninth Judicial District, because the Lenoir City Municipal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Loudon County General Sessions Court.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower courts. It held that Article VI, Section 4 requires a candidate for a municipal judgeship to be a resident of the same municipality to which they will be assigned. Therefore, Harrison needed to reside in Lenoir City for one year prior to the election. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Chancery Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "McNabb v. Harrison" on Justia Law

In Washington State, most voters cast their votes by mail, and each voter must swear under oath that they are eligible to cast that ballot. Election workers must verify that the signature on the voter’s sworn ballot declaration matches the signature on file. If the signature cannot be verified, the ballot may be challenged, and if the voter does not cure their ballot in time, their vote will not be counted. The plaintiffs argue that this signature verification process results in some lawfully cast ballots not being counted, thus violating the due process, privileges and immunities, and freedom of elections clauses of the state constitution.The trial court denied all parties' summary judgment motions and adopted the Anderson-Burdick framework to determine the level of scrutiny for the case. The court concluded that additional factual development was required and reserved ruling on whether signature verification was severable from the rest of the statutory scheme. The defendants moved to certify the trial court’s order for immediate review, which the plaintiffs did not oppose. The court certified two questions for review: the appropriate standard of judicial review for the plaintiffs’ facial challenges and whether any party is entitled to summary judgment under that standard.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that signature verification, when coupled with the increasingly expansive cure system, does not facially violate the state constitution. The court held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment, reversing in part, affirming in part, and remanding for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court emphasized that the right to vote is fundamental and that the signature verification process, as part of a robust system of checks, provides both security and ease of voting. View "Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Debbie Mayfield, a former member of the Florida House of Representatives and Florida Senate, sought to run in a special election for Senate District 19 after the incumbent announced his resignation. Mayfield submitted the necessary paperwork to qualify for the ballot, but the Secretary of State and Director of the Division of Elections refused to place her on the ballot, citing a constitutional provision on term limits.The Circuit Court did not review the case. Mayfield directly petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for writs of mandamus and quo warranto, arguing that the Secretary misinterpreted his authority and failed to fulfill his statutory duty.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and granted Mayfield's petition for mandamus relief. The court held that Mayfield had a clear legal right to appear on the ballot, as she had met all statutory requirements for qualification. The court found that the Secretary's role in reviewing candidate qualifications is ministerial and does not include the authority to assess a candidate's constitutional eligibility. The court also rejected the Secretary's interpretation of the term-limits provision, concluding that Mayfield's break in service meant she had not served more than eight consecutive years in the Senate. The court ordered the Secretary to place Mayfield on the ballot by a specified deadline and denied the petition for quo warranto as moot. View "Mayfield v. Secretary, Florida Department of State" on Justia Law

In the 2024 general election for State Representative, District 39 in Hawaii, the two candidates were Republican Elijah Pierick and Democrat Corey Rosenlee. The election was primarily conducted by mail, with in-person voting available at voter service centers. The City Clerk of Honolulu was responsible for mailing and receiving ballots, while the State Office of Elections handled the counting. After the election, Pierick received 4,712 votes, and Rosenlee received 4,701 votes, with a vote differential of 11 in favor of Pierick. Rosenlee contested the election results, alleging mistakes in the handling of return identification envelopes and long lines at voter service centers.Rosenlee filed an election contest with the Supreme Court of Hawaii on November 25, 2024. He claimed that the Clerk made mistakes in reviewing signatures on return identification envelopes, only mailing notice of deficiencies, and managing in-person voting lines. He also alleged that the Clerk's actions violated equal protection and due process. The defendants filed motions for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that no mistakes were made and that Rosenlee failed to provide evidence to support his claims.The Supreme Court of Hawaii reviewed the evidence and found that the Clerk followed the proper procedures for validating signatures on return identification envelopes. The court concluded that Rosenlee did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that any mistakes by the Clerk affected the election results. The court also found that the Clerk provided reasonable notice and opportunity for voters to cure deficiencies in their return identification envelopes. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendants and confirmed Pierick's election as State Representative, District 39. The court ordered the Chief Election Officer to deliver the certificate of election to Pierick. View "Rosenlee v. Takahashi " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson were unable to register to vote in Virginia due to felony convictions. King was convicted of felony drug possession in 2018, and Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies, including drug possession, in 2021. Virginia's constitution disenfranchises individuals convicted of felonies unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. King and Johnson argued that this disenfranchisement violated the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal statute from 1870, which they claimed restricted Virginia from amending its constitution to disenfranchise individuals for crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed three of the four counts in the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed one count based on the Virginia Readmission Act to proceed. The defendants, including various state election officials and the Governor of Virginia, moved to dismiss the complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, which the district court rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs' claim met the requirements of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits for prospective relief against state officials to prevent ongoing violations of federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow the claim to proceed against most defendants but reversed the decision regarding the Governor of Virginia and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, finding that they lacked enforcement responsibility for the challenged state action. The court concluded that the Governor and Secretary must be dismissed from the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The district court's order was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "King v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

Three registered electors from Bridgeport filed a writ of error challenging a trial judge's decision to deny their applications for arrest warrants for two individuals who allegedly violated election laws during the 2023 Democratic primary for the mayoral office. The plaintiffs claimed that the trial judge misinterpreted the relevant statute, General Statutes § 9-368, which they argued mandated the issuance of arrest warrants upon their complaint. The state of Connecticut, the defendant in error, argued that the writ should be dismissed because the plaintiffs were neither statutorily nor classically aggrieved by the denial of their applications.The Superior Court for the judicial district of Fairfield, with Judge Thomas J. Welch presiding, denied the applications for arrest warrants. The judge concluded that § 9-368 was inconsistent with the federal and state constitutions and the rules of practice, as it allowed for the issuance of arrest warrants based on a standard less than probable cause and without coordination with the Division of Criminal Justice. The judge did not reach the substantive merits of the applications and suggested that the matter could be referred to a prosecuting authority.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs in error were not required to establish statutory aggrievement to bring a writ of error. However, the court dismissed the writ on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not classically aggrieved. The court determined that the plaintiffs lacked a specific, personal, and legal interest in the arrest and prosecution of those who allegedly violated election laws, as they were private citizens without a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another. Consequently, the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the trial judge's denial of their arrest warrant applications. View "In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant" on Justia Law