Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Relators ordering Secretary of State Frank LaRose to remove a proposed constitutional amendment (SJR 2) from the August 8, 2023 special election ballot, holding that Ohio Const. art. XVI, 1 authorizes the General Assembly to prescribe a special election on a specific date by joint resolution.SJR 2 proposed to amend the Ohio Constitution to require a vote of at least sixty percent of Ohio electors to approve any constitutional amendment and to modify the procedures for an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment. The Secretary issued a directive to all county boards of elections instructing them to prepare to hold a special election on August 8. Thereafter, Relators brought this action opposing the constitutional amendment proposed in SJR 2. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the August 8, 2023 special election called in SJR 2 was authorized by Ohio Const. Art. XVI, 1. View "State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose" on Justia Law

In this case, three Latino voters from Franklin County, Washington alleged that the county’s system for electing its board of commissioners violated the Washington voting rights act of 2018 (WVRA) by “dilut[ing] the votes of Latino/a voters.” The plaintiffs (respondents on appeal) ultimately settled with defendants Franklin County and the Franklin County Board of Commissioners. The issues on appeal were raised by James Gimenez, a Franklin County voter who was allowed to intervene by the trial court. Immediately after his motion to intervene was granted, Gimenez moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing and that the WVRA was facially invalid. The trial court denied Gimenez’s motion to dismiss, and he was not an active participant in the case thereafter. After the trial court entered a final order approving the parties’ settlement, Gimenez appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court, arguing that in his view, the WVRA protected some Washington voters but excluded others. Based on this interpretation, Gimenez argued that plaintiffs did not have standing because the WVRA did not protect Latinx voters from Franklin County as a matter of law. Gimenez also argued that the WVRA was repealed by implication and was facially unconstitutional because it required local governments to implement electoral systems that favored protected voters and disfavored others on the basis of race. The Supreme Court disagreed with Gimenez's interpretation of the WVRA, and found plaintiffs had stnging and the WVRA was valid and constitutional on its face. View "Portugal v. Franklin County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ of mandamus challenging the decision of the Ohio General Assembly placing a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special election to be held on August 8, 2023, holding that a writ was warranted in part.In May 2023, the Ohio General Assembly passed a joint resolution to place to placed a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special election. Relators filed this original action against Secretary of State Frank LaRose and the Ohio Ballot Board arguing that the ballot language and title of the proposed amendment were incomplete and misleading. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding that LaRose's use of the word "any" in reference to "constitutional amendment" in the ballot title was likely to mislead voters, and the ballot board shall reconvene to adopt lawful ballot language that accurately characterizes and explains the definition of "electors" in reference to the petition signature requirements in the proposed amendment. View "State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law

Petitioner Bob Hickingbottom filed a Qualifying Statement of Intent, declaring his candidacy to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for governor. On February 10, 2023, Jim Newman sent a letter to the Democratic Party Executive Committee (DEC) to challenge Hickingbottom’s qualifications as a candidate. Specifically, Newman’s letter claimed that when running on the Constitution Party ticket in the 2019 gubernatorial election, Hickingbottom failed to file a statement of organization in violation of Mississippi Code Section 23-15-803 (Rev. 2018) and a statement of economic interest in violation of Mississippi Code Section 25-4-25 (Rev. 2018). On February 13, 2023, Tyree Irving, the chairman of the DEC, emailed Hickingbottom to notify him of Newman’s letter and to inform him that a hearing via Zoom would be conducted on February 14, 2023, to address Newman’s challenges. Then on February 14, 2023, the hearing was rescheduled to February 16, 2023, “to consider the challenges to the qualifications of several of the candidates running.” Hickingbottom was present and was given an opportunity to be heard by the DEC and to rebut Newman’s challenges to his qualifications. On February 17, 2023, Andre Wagner, the executive director of the DEC, emailed Hickingbottom to notify him that the DEC had voted and decided not to certify Hickingbottom because “[s]adly, [he] did not meet the statutory requirements[.]” Counsel for Hickingbottom sent a letter to the DEC seeking reconsideration of its decision, or in the alternative, a hearing on the disqualification. Hickingbottom ultimately filed suit in court seeking to overturn the disqualification. The court ultimately ruled in Hickingbottom's favor, ordering he be placed on the ballot. The DEC appealed. The issue before the Mississippi Supreme Court in this case was whether Hickingbottom's petition for judicial review was time barred. The Court found that because the petition for review was filed pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 23-15-961 (Rev. 2018)—which provided the exclusive procedure for such an appeal—Hickingbottom’s petition for judicial review was untimely filed and, therefore, his petition for judicial review was time barred. View "Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Hickingbottom" on Justia Law

In 1992, Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. 10301) Section 2 litigation challenging Alabama’s districting map resulted in Alabama’s first majority-black district and its first black Representative since 1877. Alabama’s congressional map has remained similar since then. Following the 2020 census, the state enacted a new districting map (HB1), which produced only one district in which black voters constituted a majority.The Supreme Court affirmed a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the use of HB 1.Section 2 provides that the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” A 1982 amendment incorporated an effects test and a disclaimer that “nothing” in Section 2 “establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” The Supreme Court subsequently employed the “Gingles framework,” under which Section 2 plaintiffs must satisfy three preconditions and then show that, under the “totality of circumstances,” the challenged process is not “equally open” to minority voters.The district court correctly found that black voters could constitute a majority in a second district that was “reasonably configured” and that there was no serious dispute that Black voters are politically cohesive, nor that the challenged districts’ white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat Black voters’ preferred candidate. The court’s findings that “Black Alabamians enjoy virtually zero success in statewide elections” and concerning “Alabama’s extensive history of repugnant racial and voting-related discrimination” were unchallenged.The Court rejected Alabama’s arguments that a state’s map cannot abridge a person’s right to vote “on account of race” if the map resembles a sufficient number of race-neutral alternatives and that the plaintiffs must prove discriminatory intent. Section 2, as applied to redistricting, is not unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment. View "Allen v. Milligan" on Justia Law

Several current or former members of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly and a legislative aide petitioned for writ of mandamus, seeking relief from orders of the district court directing them to comply with subpoenas for documents or testimony in a civil case brought against the State of North Dakota.   The Eighth Circuit denied the writ and directed the district court to quash the subpoenas for petitioner Devlin to testify and for petitioners Holmberg, Wardner, Poolman, Nathe, Devlin, and Ness to produce documents and other information. The court concluded that the district court’s conclusion to the contrary was based on a mistaken conception of the legislative privilege. In its order enforcing the document subpoenas, the district court reasoned that legislative privilege did not apply because the subpoena sought communications between legislators and third parties. The legislative privilege, however, is not limited to a bar on the inquiry into communications among legislators or between legislators and their aides. The privilege is not designed merely to protect the confidentiality of deliberations within a legislative body; it protects the functioning of the legislature more broadly. Communications with constituents, advocacy groups, and others outside the legislature are a legitimate aspect of legislative activity. The use of compulsory evidentiary processes against legislators and their aides to gather evidence about this legislative activity is thus barred by the legislative privilege. View "In Re: North Dakota Legislative Assembly v." on Justia Law

In January 2023, Joel Garner received a letter from the Perry County, Mississippi Election Commission, co-signed by the lone member of the Perry County Republican Executive Committee. The letter notified him that he did not meet the two-year residency requirement to run in the upcoming Republican primary for Perry County Supervisor, District 2. Garner petitioned for judicial review with the Perry County Circuit Court. The Mississippi Supreme Court appointed a special trial judge, who tried the qualification question de novo. After two days of evidentiary hearings, the circuit judge made thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law. The judge ordered that Garner’s name be placed on the primary election ballot. Garner’s opponent, District 2 Supervisor Kevin Shows, and the Perry County Republican Executive Committee (collectively, the Executive Committee) appealed that decision. Because substantial evidence supported the trial judge’s conclusion that Garner changed his residency in January 2021—more than two years before the District 2 Supervisor election—the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment directing that Garner’s name be placed on the ballot for the Republican primary to be held August 8, 2023. View "Shows, et al. v. Garner" on Justia Law

Ja’nekia Barton sought to disqualify Jennifer Adams-Williams as a candidate for county prosecutor in Bolivar County, Mississippi, for failing to meet the two-year residency requirement set forth by Mississippi Code Section 23-15-300 (Supp. 2022). The Bolivar County Circuit Court denied Barton’s petition, finding that Adams-Williams was clearly a resident of Bolivar County and had been for the required two-year residency period. Finding that the trial court applied the proper legal standard in its analysis and did not manifestly err in its factual findings, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Barton v. Adams-Williams" on Justia Law

In this action arising from an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment entitled "The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety" the Supreme Court held that Relators, registered Ohio voters, were not entitled to a writ of mandamus.The Ohio Ballot Board and its members determined that the initiative petition proposed a single constitutional amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would protect an individual's "right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions." Relators commenced this action ordering the Board to issue a determination that the petition contained more than one amendment. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the ballot board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in determining that petition at issue contained a single constitutional amendment. View "State ex rel. DeBlase v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that an unconstitutional provision in a proposed charter amendment was not severable, holding that the provision was not severable from the remainder of the proposed charter amendment.On August 8, 2022, the Bloomington City Council voted to reject the entirety of a proposed charter amendment based on its conclusion that the last of the proposed amendment's four sections, section 4.08, was manifestly unconstitutional. Appellants filed a petition seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to sever section 4.08 and submit the remaining valid provisions to voters. The district court denied the petition, concluding that it would be improper to sever section 4.08 from the remainder of the proposed charter amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 4.08 could not properly be severed from the proposed city-charter amendment. View "Kranz v. City of Bloomington" on Justia Law