Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

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

A group of landowners in Summit County, Utah, challenged a proposed ballot measure to incorporate a new municipality called West Hills. The sponsor of the incorporation, Derek Anderson, had modified the proposed boundaries after the statutory deadline for landowners to request exclusion from the new municipality had passed. As a result, certain landowners whose properties were added late were unable to seek exclusion, even though similarly situated landowners had previously been allowed to do so.The landowners filed suit in the Third District Court, Silver Summit, arguing that the Municipal Incorporation Code, as applied, violated the Uniform Operation of Laws Clause of the Utah Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment for the landowners, finding the code unconstitutional as applied and invalidating the certification of the West Hills ballot measure. The court determined that the plaintiffs were “specified landowners” who would have been entitled to exclusion if their properties had been added earlier, and that the legislature’s interest in certainty did not justify the disparate treatment.The sponsor then filed an emergency petition for extraordinary relief with the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, seeking to overturn the district court’s order before the upcoming election. The Utah Supreme Court, after expedited briefing and oral argument, denied the petition for extraordinary relief. The court held that, under the unique circumstances, it would not exercise its discretion to issue a writ due to the potential disruption and confusion in the election process, including the risk of voter suppression and interference with electioneering efforts. The denial was without prejudice to the sponsor’s ability to pursue an appeal or interlocutory review of the district court’s order. View "Anderson v. Bates" on Justia Law

Huntington Beach, a charter city in Orange County, amended its city charter through Measure A, which authorized the city to require voter identification for municipal elections beginning in 2026. This measure was passed by local voters. In response, the California Legislature enacted Elections Code section 10005, effective January 1, 2025, which prohibits any local government from requiring voter identification for voting unless mandated by state or federal law. The statute was specifically intended to address Huntington Beach’s Measure A.Following the passage of Measure A, the State of California, through the Attorney General and Secretary of State, filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Orange County, seeking to invalidate the voter identification provision in the city charter. The City of Huntington Beach demurred, arguing the issue was not ripe since the provision had not yet been implemented. The trial court sustained the demurrer, but after procedural developments and further hearings, ultimately denied the state’s petition, finding that the charter provision did not violate the right to vote or implicate the integrity of the electoral process. The state timely appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. Applying the four-part “home rule” test, the court held that Elections Code section 10005 addresses a matter of statewide concern—integrity of the electoral process—and is narrowly tailored to prevent discriminatory barriers to voting. The court concluded that section 10005 preempts the Huntington Beach charter provision. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and remanded with directions to issue a writ of mandate invalidating the charter provision, enter a permanent injunction against its enforcement, and declare it preempted by state law. View "P. ex rel. Bonta v. City of Huntington Beach" on Justia Law

A citizen of Cleburne County submitted a petition for a local ballot initiative, titled the “Hand Marked, Hand Counted Paper Ballot Ordinance of 2024,” to the county clerk for inclusion in the 2024 general election. The county clerk rejected the petition, determining that there were insufficient valid signatures because some paid canvassers were not Arkansas residents as required by law. The canvassers later submitted supplemental affidavits listing Arkansas addresses, but the clerk still refused to count those signatures.The petitioner then filed suit in the Cleburne County Circuit Court, seeking a writ of mandamus and an injunction to compel the clerk to count the disputed signatures and certify the petition if it met the signature requirements. After an expedited hearing, the circuit court granted both the writ and the injunction, ordering the clerk to count all signatures, including those “cured” by the supplemental affidavits, and to certify the petition if it was sufficient.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the circuit court could require the county clerk to certify a local ballot initiative that was not timely filed under the Arkansas Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution sets the exclusive timeline for filing local initiative petitions—no sooner than ninety days and no later than sixty days before the election. The petition in question was filed too early for the 2024 election and, by operation of statute, would have been certified for the 2026 election, but it was also untimely for that election under the constitutional timeline. The Supreme Court held that the relevant statutory provisions were unconstitutional to the extent they conflicted with the constitutional timeline. The court reversed the circuit court’s order and dismissed the case, holding that a circuit court cannot require certification of an untimely initiative. View "EVANS v. HARRISON" on Justia Law