Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The dispute arose when the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (HB 1) in September 2025, which would repeal the 2022 congressional districts and establish new ones. Organizers opposed to HB 1 submitted a referendum petition to the Secretary of State, meeting both the signature and timing requirements set by the Missouri Constitution. The Secretary of State, however, issued a Certificate of Insufficiency, asserting that the Missouri Constitution does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting acts passed by the General Assembly, and directed that the petition not be placed on the November 2026 ballot.After this, Richard von Glahn, a proponent of the referendum, filed suit in the Cole County Circuit Court seeking to overturn the Secretary’s decision and prevent implementation of HB 1. The circuit court upheld the Secretary’s determination. Von Glahn appealed, and the Supreme Court of Missouri en banc granted discretionary transfer to address the important legal issue presented.The Supreme Court of Missouri en banc held that the Missouri Constitution’s article III, section 49, plainly authorizes the people to approve or reject by referendum “any act of the general assembly,” including congressional redistricting legislation. The Court found that none of the exceptions in article III, section 52(a) applied to HB 1 and rejected arguments that redistricting laws are exempt from referendum. The Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment, ordered the Secretary to certify the petition as sufficient, place it on the November 2026 ballot, and enjoined use of the HB 1 districts unless and until approved by voters. The congressional districts established in 2022 remain in effect for the 2026 election unless HB 1 is approved and takes effect thereafter. View "von Glahn vs. Hoskins" on Justia Law

Two nonprofit organizations that engage in nationwide issue advocacy challenged Delaware’s Elections Disclosure Act, which requires groups spending over $500 on electioneering communications near an election to publicly disclose donors giving more than $100 during the relevant cycle. The law’s disclosure obligations are broad: they are not limited to donors earmarking funds for political ads, nor can donors avoid disclosure by restricting the use of their contributions. The law also looks back several years for purposes of disclosure. The organizations, which have not previously run such communications in Delaware but claim they intend to do so in the upcoming election, argue that the law violates the First Amendment.After the organizations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, they sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the Act. The District Court denied the request, finding no likelihood of success on the facial challenge because prior Third Circuit precedent, Delaware Strong Families v. Attorney General of Delaware, had upheld the Act and the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta did not clearly abrogate that ruling. The court also doubted the as-applied challenge, citing the plaintiffs’ failure to offer specific evidence of harm to donors. The District Court emphasized the law’s decade-long enforcement and the lack of urgent need to change the status quo.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the denial. Applying a deferential standard, the court found that the plaintiffs had not made a clear showing of entitlement to a preliminary injunction. It held that even with some likelihood of success and possible irreparable injury, the balance of equities and the public interest favored preserving the longstanding status quo. The court affirmed the District Court’s order denying the preliminary injunction. View "Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Albence" on Justia Law

An organization based in Virginia requested access to Minnesota’s Registered Voter List under a federal statute, asserting it was entitled to the records despite Minnesota’s exemption from the law. Minnesota denied the request, citing its exemption as a state with continuous election-day registration since August 1, 1994. The organization also sought the information under a Minnesota statute, but was again denied because no Minnesota-registered voter joined the request. The organization acknowledged it could obtain the information by recruiting a Minnesota voter but did not do so. It then filed suit, claiming Minnesota’s exemption from the federal disclosure requirement was unconstitutional, alleging informational injury and other adverse consequences.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the case. Minnesota moved to dismiss, and the United States intervened to defend the statute’s constitutionality. The district court dismissed the organization’s claim on the merits, concluding that the “equal sovereignty” principle does not apply to Congress’s authority under the Elections Clause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the organization had Article III standing. The court reviewed standing de novo and focused on whether the plaintiff had suffered a concrete injury in fact. The court held that a purely informational injury does not satisfy Article III’s requirements and found the plaintiff’s alleged downstream consequences insufficient, as they lacked a nexus to the interests Congress sought to protect. The court concluded the plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury and therefore lacked standing.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Simon" on Justia Law

The President issued an Executive Order that directed certain federal agencies to take actions related to election integrity, including creating and distributing lists of eligible voters, prioritizing prosecution of officials issuing ballots to ineligible voters, and initiating a rulemaking related to ballot tracking. The Order did not impose any requirements on states or parties outside the Executive Branch, and all actions were subject to feasibility and compliance with existing law. Shortly after the Order was issued, several states and the District of Columbia sued, arguing that the Order unconstitutionally infringed on their authority to administer elections.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts agreed with the states and entered a final judgment enjoining the federal government from implementing the challenged provisions of the Order as to the plaintiff states for the upcoming midterm elections. The government sought a stay of this injunction from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which was denied, prompting an emergency application to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States granted the stay, holding that the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the states lacked standing and their claims were not ripe for adjudication. The Court reasoned that the Order was an internal directive that did not cause concrete or imminent harm to the states, and any alleged injury was speculative and dependent on uncertain future events. The Court also found that the government would likely suffer irreparable harm from the injunction, which interfered with the internal workings of the Executive Branch. As a result, the Supreme Court stayed the District Court’s injunction pending further appellate review. View "Trump v. California" on Justia Law

Several individuals and a nonprofit organization in Minnesota, focused on election integrity, wished to publicly advocate their interpretation that certain felons—specifically those still on supervised release—are constitutionally ineligible to vote in Minnesota. State law, however, allows felons to vote once released from incarceration, regardless of whether they are on parole or probation. Concerned about possible prosecution under a Minnesota statute that criminalizes knowingly false statements about voter eligibility made within 60 days of an election, the plaintiffs sought to continue their advocacy without facing criminal or civil penalties.After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the group lacked standing to challenge the felon voting law in state court, the plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the election disinformation statute, arguing it violated the First Amendment. In response, the Anoka County Attorney filed a counterclaim, seeking to restrain the plaintiffs from violating the law and to obtain damages. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and denied a preliminary injunction, concluding that the law could constitutionally restrict their speech. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction while the counterclaim remained pending.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and found that the plaintiffs had standing due to both actual and imminent injuries. The court held that the statute at issue regulated protected political speech based on its content and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny. The court determined that Minnesota’s law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as it both overreached and underreached in its restriction of speech, and also authorized unconstitutional prior restraints. The Eighth Circuit reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Ellison" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization dedicated to election integrity requested a copy of Wisconsin’s voter registration list, seeking access under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Wisconsin, however, is exempt from the NVRA because it has permitted same-day polling-place registration since before August 1, 1994. The state processed the request under its public-records law, which required redaction of birth dates and imposed a fee of $12,500 due to the size of the list. The organization objected to both the fee and the redactions, arguing that Wisconsin’s exemption from the NVRA was unconstitutional.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the case. The district judge held that the plaintiff’s claims—asserting violations of the “equal state sovereignty” principle from Shelby County v. Holder and the “congruence and proportionality” requirement from City of Boerne v. Flores—were not supported by law. While the judge found that the plaintiff had Article III standing due to the alleged financial injury, he expressed doubt about prudential standing but decided the case on the merits, concluding that neither cited Supreme Court decision undermined the validity of Wisconsin’s exemption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court agreed that the plaintiff had Article III standing but questioned prudential standing, as the legal theories invoked state, rather than individual, rights. Nonetheless, the court bypassed this issue, holding that the NVRA’s exemption for states like Wisconsin does not violate equal state sovereignty or the congruence and proportionality standard. The court emphasized that the exemption relieves, rather than imposes, federal regulatory burdens and that Congress acted under its Elections Clause authority, making City of Boerne inapplicable. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

A group of registered voters in South Carolina, all under the age of sixty-five, challenged a provision of state law that restricts “no excuse” absentee-by-mail voting to voters sixty-five years of age or older. These plaintiffs argued that the statute unconstitutionally discriminates against them on account of age, in violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, and also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law at issue allows voters sixty-five and older to vote absentee by mail for any reason, while voters under sixty-five can only do so if they meet specific, narrow criteria such as disability, military service, or certain employment conflicts.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, where the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants—the South Carolina State Election Commission and related officials—on both constitutional claims. The district court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a violation of either the Twenty-Sixth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the appeal. This court held that the plaintiffs have standing and that South Carolina’s age-based absentee-by-mail voting scheme violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment because it abridges the right to vote on account of age by providing greater ballot access to older voters. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the Equal Protection claim, as age is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause and the plaintiffs did not challenge the law under rational basis or Anderson-Burdick scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on the Twenty-Sixth Amendment claim, affirmed the Equal Protection ruling, and remanded the case for appropriate remedy. View "Grant v. Belangia" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former New Mexico state senator, used leftover campaign funds to make charitable donations, including a $200 contribution to assist a high school student with attending a pre-law program. These donations were made to individuals and organizations that did not qualify as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act (CRA) prohibits most campaign expenditures, but lists certain permitted uses, including donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. After the Secretary of State discovered the $200 donation during a random audit, she determined it violated the CRA and requested the plaintiff to reimburse his campaign fund. The plaintiff refused, arguing that enforcing the CRA in this way violated his First Amendment rights, and the matter was referred to the State Ethics Commission and Attorney General.In the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the restriction was facially unconstitutional, and injunctive relief. The district court initially granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the CRA for such donations, viewing the plaintiff’s claim as a facial overbreadth challenge and finding it likely to succeed. However, after further proceedings and in light of an affidavit from the Secretary of State, the district court concluded the CRA did not prohibit protected speech, granted summary judgment for the defendant, and denied a permanent injunction. The district court allowed the plaintiff’s as-applied challenge to proceed separately; the plaintiff appealed only the denial of his facial challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the CRA’s prohibition on donations to non-501(c)(3) organizations and individuals facially regulates activity protected by the First Amendment. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, directing the lower court to determine the appropriate constitutional test and apply it to the CRA’s challenged prohibitions. View "Ortiz y Pino v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Arizona amended its election laws in 2022, introducing two provisions: one requires county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration in their county if the voter registers in a new county (“Cancellation Provision”), and the other criminalizes knowingly providing a “mechanism for voting” to someone registered in another state (“Felony Provision”). Three organizations engaged in voter registration and education activities claimed these provisions would interfere with their efforts, and sought to enjoin enforcement. They argued that the Cancellation Provision would lead to improper removal of voters and that the Felony Provision was vague and could chill their constitutionally protected activities.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of both provisions. The Arizona Attorney General appealed. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction, finding that the organizations lacked standing for the Cancellation Provision and were unlikely to succeed on the merits regarding the Felony Provision. The case was then reheard en banc after the prior panel’s opinion was vacated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the organizations lacked standing to challenge the Cancellation Provision because they did not clearly show that it directly affected or interfered with their core activities, as required by FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The court further held that the organizations had standing to challenge the Felony Provision due to a credible threat of prosecution, but were unlikely to succeed on the merits, as the statutory context indicated that “mechanism for voting” likely refers only to a ballot or ballot envelope, not to voter registration or education activities. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. View "ARIZONA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS V. MAYES" on Justia Law

A group of candidates and political party committees, including then-Senate candidate JD Vance and various Republican campaign committees, challenged federal limits on coordinated campaign expenditures by political parties under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). These limits restrict the amount a party can spend in direct coordination with a candidate’s campaign. Plaintiffs argued that the restrictions violate the First Amendment, especially given modern developments in campaign finance law and enforcement tools such as earmarking and disclosure requirements. JD Vance maintained standing to challenge the law, as he had an active Statement of Candidacy and a campaign committee, despite later becoming Vice President.The case was first reviewed by the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld FECA’s coordinated-expenditure limits. The Sixth Circuit relied primarily on the Supreme Court’s 2001 precedent, Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II), which had previously sustained these limits against First Amendment challenges. However, several Sixth Circuit judges questioned whether Colorado II remained good law in light of more recent Supreme Court decisions, including McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate.The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and ultimately reversed the Sixth Circuit. The Court held that FECA’s limits on political-party coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment. Applying rigorous scrutiny, the Court determined that the limits are not necessary, narrowly tailored, or proportionate to the government’s interest in preventing circumvention of candidate contribution limits, especially given the effectiveness of existing earmarking rules and disclosure laws. The Court explicitly overruled Colorado II, concluding that subsequent precedents have rendered it obsolete. The judgment of the Sixth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law