Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns the non-reappointment of a local general registrar of elections in Lynchburg, Virginia. The plaintiff, previously appointed unanimously by a bipartisan electoral board, reapplied for her position after her term expired in 2023. By that time, the board’s partisan makeup had shifted to include two Republicans and one Democrat, reflecting state law. The board interviewed four candidates, including the plaintiff, but ultimately appointed a different candidate who was a registered Republican. The plaintiff, describing herself as an independent, alleged her non-reappointment was due to partisan bias rather than job performance.Following the board’s decision, the plaintiff sued the board and its two Republican members, alleging First Amendment violations tied to political animus. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed the claim against the board itself on sovereign immunity grounds, but allowed the suit against the individual members to proceed. After a jury trial, the verdict favored the defendants. The plaintiff then appealed, raising concerns about jury selection procedures and the exclusion of certain evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the appeal. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in managing voir dire, including its refusal to allow more pointed questioning about potential jurors’ political affiliations and beliefs. The Fourth Circuit also determined that the plaintiff had not preserved most evidentiary challenges for appellate review, as she failed to make sufficient proffers or obtain definitive rulings on excluded evidence. For the limited evidentiary exclusions properly preserved, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Gibbons v. Gibbs" on Justia Law

A candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives was challenged by his opponent, who argued that she was ineligible to run for office due to a prior disposition in a 2018 hot-check case. The challenger claimed that the opponent had been found guilty of violating the Arkansas Hot Check Law, which, under state constitutional and statutory provisions, would render her ineligible for election. The evidence included a district court docket showing a disposition labeled “GUILTY – BOND FORFEITURE,” as well as payment of fines, fees, and restitution related to the charge. The opponent did not contest the existence of the underlying case but denied that she had been convicted or found guilty.The case was first heard in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. After a hearing that included testimony from court and law enforcement personnel about the court’s procedures, and review of the district court records, the circuit court concluded that the bond forfeiture was not an admission of guilt. The court found that the opponent had neither entered a plea nor been found guilty by the court. The circuit court therefore held that she had not been convicted of an infamous crime or a public trust crime under Arkansas law, and denied the challenger’s petition for declaratory judgment and mandamus.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the record and the circuit court’s findings under a clearly erroneous standard. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that a bond forfeiture, without a plea or factual finding of guilt, does not constitute a conviction or render a candidate ineligible under Article 5, Section 9 of the Arkansas Constitution or the relevant statutes. The Supreme Court rejected the challenger’s remaining arguments and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "DAY V. WARDLAW" on Justia Law

Two individuals, a political commentator and a state legislator, brought suit against Minnesota officials to challenge a state statute that criminalizes the dissemination of “deep fake” content intended to influence elections. The law applies to realistic depictions that could mislead a reasonable person into believing a public figure engaged in speech or conduct they did not. The commentator created an AI-generated video of Vice President Harris, which he labeled as parody with a clear disclaimer. The legislator shared the same video without any disclaimer. Both plaintiffs argued that the statute infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.After the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, the district court found that the commentator lacked standing because the only videos he posted were labeled as parody and thus not covered by the statute. The court concluded that the legislator did have standing, since she shared content that could plausibly be seen as a deep fake under the law. However, the court denied her motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding she had unreasonably delayed in seeking relief—waiting over sixteen months after the statute’s enactment without sufficient explanation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the commentator did not demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution or show any evidence of injury, including from third parties. The court also determined that the legislator’s delay in seeking a preliminary injunction undermined her claim of irreparable harm, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying extraordinary relief. The Eighth Circuit left open the possibility of further proceedings on the merits, including a permanent injunction, but affirmed the denial of preliminary relief. View "Kohls v. Ellison" on Justia Law

Illinois law provides that election officials must count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day, as long as those ballots are received within two weeks after election day. Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates filed suit against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its executive director, asserting that counting ballots received after election day violates federal statutes that set a single election day for federal offices. The plaintiffs alleged that the challenged law would require them to expend additional campaign resources, potentially harm their reputations, and deprive them of a fair electoral process. Congressman Bost, in particular, claimed he would need to extend campaign activities and monitoring efforts for two additional weeks, incurring costs and risking a reduction in his margin of victory.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the injuries alleged—such as increased campaign costs and potential reputational harm—were speculative or voluntarily incurred. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that Congressman Bost had won his prior election with a significant margin and found the plaintiffs’ injuries to be neither concrete nor particularized enough to support standing.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Congressman Bost, as a candidate for office, does have standing to challenge the rules governing vote counting in his election. The Court reasoned that candidates possess a concrete and particularized interest in the integrity and legality of the electoral process, which is distinct from the generalized interest of voters. The judgment of the Seventh Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

A petitioner sought a declaratory judgment regarding the legal sufficiency of a proposed constitutional ballot initiative, known as Ballot Issue 4. This initiative aimed to amend the Montana Constitution to limit the powers and privileges of "artificial persons"—including corporations, nonprofit corporations, limited liability companies, unincorporated associations, and certain foreign entities—by expressly restricting their ability to engage in election and ballot issue activities. The initiative would revoke all powers previously granted to artificial persons under Montana law, regrant only those necessary for lawful business or charitable purposes, and specifically prohibit election-related activities except for certain political committees. The petitioner contended that all provisions of the initiative were integral to a unified purpose: preventing artificial persons from participating in political spending.The Montana Attorney General, supported by amici, determined that Ballot Issue 4 was legally insufficient because it violated the separate-vote requirement of Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution. According to the Attorney General, the initiative encompassed multiple changes that were not closely related, including broad revocations and regrants of powers to artificial persons, and affected diverse areas of law beyond the stated intent. The petitioner challenged this determination, arguing that the initiative constituted a single, unified scheme and that none of its provisions could sensibly be considered separately.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana exercised original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination. The Court held that Ballot Issue 4 violated the separate-vote requirement because it proposed more than one substantive constitutional change—specifically, both limiting artificial persons’ powers to those expressly provided and revoking and regranting powers in a manner that extended beyond election-related activities. The Court affirmed the Attorney General’s rejection of the initiative and denied the petitioner’s request to declare it legally sufficient. View "Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature passed the Election Protection and Integrity Act of 2021 (“S.B.1”), a sweeping law that amended numerous aspects of the state’s election procedures, multiple groups of plaintiffs—including civil rights and voter advocacy organizations—challenged thirty-eight provisions of the law. They alleged violations of various constitutional amendments, the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act, naming state officials including the Texas Secretary of State and Attorney General as defendants.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity and lack of standing. The district court addressed the motions on a provision-by-provision basis, concluding that the Secretary and Attorney General were sufficiently connected to the enforcement of most challenged provisions to overcome sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young, and that plaintiffs had standing to sue. It denied the motions to dismiss for the majority of the claims, although it dismissed others as moot, for lack of standing, or for failure to state a claim. The defendants appealed the denials.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory sovereign immunity appeals. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the VRA claims were not barred by sovereign immunity. For the constitutional and other statutory claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court determined that the Secretary of State is a proper defendant only for those provisions she directly enforces—such as those involving the design of forms and sanctioning of registrars—and not for those enforced by other officials. Similarly, it held the Attorney General could be sued only for one provision authorizing civil penalties. The court affirmed standing for claims against provisions enforced by these officials. View "Un del Pueblo Entero v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Four Arizona voters, each residing in a different geographic voting district, challenged the constitutionality of the statute governing the retention election process for Arizona Court of Appeals judges. The statute, A.R.S. § 12-120.02, divides the state into four geographic voting districts, limiting which voters may participate in the retention elections for particular appellate judges. The plaintiffs argued that, because Court of Appeals judges have statewide precedential authority, all Arizona voters should be permitted to participate in their retention elections. They alleged that the district-based system violated both the Free and Equal Elections Clause and the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Arizona Constitution.In the Superior Court in Maricopa County, the State moved to dismiss the complaint, raising arguments including lack of standing and the constitutionality of the statute. The superior court granted the motion to dismiss. It found that § 12-120.02 did not violate the Free and Equal Elections Clause because there was no complete denial of the right to vote, and that the Constitution’s design did not require statewide participation in all judicial retention elections. The court also rejected the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause claim, holding that the statute treated all similarly situated voters within each district equally, and no class was treated differently from another similarly situated class.On direct review, the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona affirmed the superior court’s dismissal. The court held that the Free and Equal Elections Clause is only implicated where there is a complete denial of the right to vote or unequal weighting of votes, neither of which were present here. It also held that the one-person, one-vote principle does not apply to judicial retention elections. Regarding the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, the court found that all voters within each geographic district are treated equally, so the statute did not violate the state constitution. View "KNIGHT v FONTES" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting electoral transparency operates a website that republishes voter registration data collected from state agencies. The group obtained New Mexico’s voter data through a third party and published it online, including information such as names, addresses, party affiliation, and voting history. After the website highlighted discrepancies in the state’s voter rolls, New Mexico’s Secretary of State publicly questioned the group’s motives and the lawfulness of its actions. The Secretary referred the group to the Attorney General for criminal investigation under state statutes that restrict the use and sharing of voter data. The group’s subsequent requests for updated voter data were denied.After the state’s refusal, the organization filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that New Mexico’s restrictions were preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing prosecution, which was later stayed by the Tenth Circuit. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found that the NVRA preempted New Mexico’s restrictions and enjoined criminal prosecution. The court rejected most of the group’s remaining constitutional claims but, following a bench trial, held that the state engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by refusing further data requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the NVRA preempts New Mexico’s restrictions on the use and sharing of voter data, holding that state laws that prevent broad public disclosure of voter data conflict with the NVRA’s requirements. The Tenth Circuit did not reach the First Amendment claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Voter Reference Foundation v. Torrez" 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

Six residents of the Town of Newburgh sued the Town and its Town Board, alleging that the Board’s at-large electoral system unlawfully diluted the votes of Black and Hispanic residents, in violation of Section 17-206 of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA). The plaintiffs argued that the method of electing all five Town Board members at-large prevented Black and Hispanic voters, who together made up about 40% of the population, from electing their preferred candidates or influencing election outcomes. They sought a court declaration that the at-large system violated the NYVRA and an injunction requiring the Town to implement a different electoral system.The Town of Newburgh moved for summary judgment, arguing that Section 17-206 was facially unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and New York Constitutions, and that its current election system complied with the NYVRA. The Supreme Court, Orange County, granted the Town’s motion, holding that the Town could challenge the statute because it allegedly could not comply with the NYVRA without violating equal protection, and declared the provision—and the entire NYVRA—unconstitutional. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the Town lacked capacity to bring this challenge since it had not shown that compliance with the NYVRA would force it to violate equal protection, and that the Supreme Court erred in invalidating the statute.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the Town of Newburgh, as a political subdivision created by the State, could not bring a facial constitutional challenge to the NYVRA's vote-dilution provision. The court reaffirmed the longstanding rule that political subdivisions generally lack authority to challenge state laws unless a narrow exception applies, and found that no such exception was met here. The Appellate Division’s order was affirmed. View "Clarke v Town of Newburgh" on Justia Law