Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

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

The plaintiff, Siddhanth Sharma, a convicted felon, challenged North Carolina's felony-disclosure requirement for candidates running for federal office. This state law mandates that candidates disclose any felony convictions and provide additional information about the convictions and the restoration of citizenship rights. Sharma, who announced his candidacy for North Carolina’s Thirteenth Congressional District seat, argued that this requirement violated the Qualifications Clause and the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed Sharma's claims. The court found that Sharma had standing to challenge the felony-disclosure requirement but concluded that it did not constitute an additional qualification for office. The court also held that the requirement did not violate the First Amendment, as it served a substantial interest in promoting an informed electorate and posed only a modest burden. Sharma's challenge to the address-disclosure requirement was dismissed for lack of standing, as the court found his injury insufficiently particularized.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the felony-disclosure requirement is constitutional. The court reasoned that the requirement does not exclude candidates from the ballot or disadvantage political viewpoints, and it falls within the state's authority to regulate elections. The court also found that the requirement imposes only a light burden on First Amendment rights and serves the state's interest in fostering an informed electorate. However, the court vacated the judgment on the address-disclosure challenge and remanded it to the district court with instructions to dismiss it as moot, as Sharma's address was already publicly available in the voter-search database. View "Siddhanth Sharma v. Alan Hirsch" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Kansas's restrictions on private parties partially filling out mail-ballot applications before sending them to registered voters. Plaintiffs, VoteAmerica and Voter Participation Center (VPC), argue that these restrictions violate their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. They seek an injunction to prevent Kansas officials from enforcing the law.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ruled in favor of the plaintiffs after a bench trial based on stipulated facts. The court applied strict scrutiny to the law, finding that it violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The court held that the mailing of prefilled applications was protected speech and that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court also found that the law infringed on the plaintiffs' associational rights and declared the law unconstitutionally overbroad.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first determined that the prefilled applications should be considered separately from the cover letter included in the mailings. It then concluded that mailing the prefilled applications constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the court rejected the application of strict scrutiny under the Meyer-Buckley framework, finding that the law did not restrict access to a fundamental avenue of political discourse. The court also rejected the argument that the law was subject to strict scrutiny due to speaker discrimination, as the law's speaker-based exception did not reflect a content preference.The Tenth Circuit held that the proper level of scrutiny for the law is intermediate scrutiny, as the law is a content-based but viewpoint-neutral regulation. The court reversed the district court's rulings on the overbreadth and freedom-of-association claims, remanding for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants on these claims. The court also remanded the free-speech claim for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, applying intermediate scrutiny. View "VoteAmerica v. Schwab" on Justia Law

Progress for Cane Hill, a local-option ballot committee, collected enough signatures to propose a local ordinance to make two precincts in Cane Hill "wet." However, Washington County Clerk Becky Lewallen rejected the initiative because 332 of the signatures were collected by paid canvassers who were not Arkansas residents.Progress for Cane Hill challenged the rejection in the Washington County Circuit Court. The circuit court found that the residency requirement in Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-103(a)(6) did not apply to local-option ballot initiatives and ordered Lewallen to certify the initiative's sufficiency. Lewallen appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and focused on statutory interpretation. The court held that the residency requirement for paid canvassers in section 7-9-103(a)(6) does apply to local-option ballot initiatives. The court reasoned that the Local Option Code incorporates the general Election Code, which includes the residency requirement. The court found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and reversed and remanded the case, ordering that votes on the ballot measure not be counted. View "LEWALLEN v. PROGRESS FOR CANE HILL" on Justia Law

The case involves the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the North Carolina Republican Party (NCGOP) filing two state law claims against the North Carolina State Board of Elections (State Board) and its members. The claims, one statutory and one constitutional, allege that the State Board failed to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which mandates certain voter registration and maintenance procedures. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) intervened as a defendant. The plaintiffs argue that the State Board's noncompliance with HAVA led to improper voter registrations, potentially affecting 225,000 voters.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially reviewed the case. The district court found it had original jurisdiction over the state statutory claim but not the state constitutional claim. It dismissed the statutory claim, ruling that the relevant statutory provision did not provide a private right of action. Consequently, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim and remanded it to state court, also holding that Section 1443 did not provide a valid basis for removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court's remand order was improper. It found that the district court possessed original jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim under Section 1331 because the claim contained an embedded federal question. The court also determined that removal was permissible under Section 1441. Additionally, the court held that the defendants validly removed the constitutional claim pursuant to Section 1443(2), which allows for removal in cases involving the refusal to perform an act on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with laws providing for equal rights. The court reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "RNC v. North Carolina State Board of Elections" on Justia Law