Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Three Kentucky Republican Party county executive committees challenged the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance’s prohibition on expending funds to support a state constitutional amendment on the November general election ballot. The committees sought an advisory opinion from the Registry, which concluded that they could not use funds raised for party nominees to support a constitutional amendment and would need to form a political issues committee for such expenditures. The committees argued that this restriction violated their First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the committees' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the requirement to form a political issues committee imposed only a minimal burden on their First Amendment rights, justified by the governmental interest in transparency and disclosure. The court concluded that the Registry’s actions met the standards of strict scrutiny, exacting scrutiny, or rational basis review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and granted an injunction pending appeal. The court found that the executive committees were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. It determined that the Registry’s prohibition on spending in support of a constitutional amendment burdened the committees' political speech. The court applied strict scrutiny, concluding that the Registry’s restriction was not narrowly tailored to the asserted interest in disclosure. The court noted that less restrictive alternatives, such as imposing disclosure requirements on executive committees, could achieve the same ends without restricting speech. The Registry was enjoined from enforcing its advisory opinion against the committees, and expedited briefing was ordered for the appeal. View "Boone County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Wallace" on Justia Law

The relator, Justin Tjaden, sought a writ of mandamus to have his name placed on the November 5, 2024, general-election ballot as an independent candidate for the office of state representative of Ohio House District 99. Tjaden's petition was found to be 124 valid signatures short of the required number. He argued that the boards of elections exceeded their authority by invalidating signatures as "not genuine" and violated his procedural due process and equal protection rights. Tjaden also contended that the statutory requirement for independent candidates to submit a petition with signatures amounting to at least one percent of registered voters who cast ballots for governor in the 2022 general election was unconstitutional.The Geauga County Board of Elections determined that Tjaden's petition contained 371 valid signatures, which was insufficient to qualify for the ballot. Tjaden attempted to challenge this decision in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas but was unsuccessful due to procedural issues. He then filed a complaint in the same court and a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court dismissed his first mandamus action based on the jurisdictional-priority rule but allowed him to file a second mandamus action after his common-pleas-court case was removed to federal court.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Tjaden's writ of mandamus. The court held that Tjaden did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, even if all contested signatures were deemed valid. The court also found that Tjaden's procedural due process rights were not violated, as the mandamus action provided him with the necessary process. Additionally, the court declined to address Tjaden's equal protection claim, stating that even if the statute were declared unconstitutional, there would be no statutory requirement for an independent candidate to qualify for the ballot. Thus, the court denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Tjaden v. Geauga County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The appellant, a Democratic Party activist and former candidate for Plano City Council, was indicted for violating Section 255.004(b) of the Texas Election Code. This statute prohibits knowingly representing in a campaign communication that the communication emanates from a source other than its true source, with the intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election. The appellant sent text messages that appeared to come from a Republican or conservative campaign, identifying Republicans in local nonpartisan races. In response, the appellant filed a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional as it regulated core political speech and was not narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.The trial court denied the appellant's application. On appeal, the Fifth Court of Appeals agreed with the appellant, finding that the statute was not narrowly tailored and did not survive strict scrutiny. The appellate court held that the statute's broad reach was problematic and ordered the trial court to dismiss the indictment.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case upon the State's petition. The State argued that the statute was narrowly drafted and survived strict scrutiny. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that Section 255.004(b) of the Texas Election Code was unconstitutional. The court found that the statute was a content-based restriction on protected speech and did not meet the strict scrutiny standard. It was not narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of preventing dishonest conduct in elections. The court affirmed the Fifth Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment. View "EX PARTE STAFFORD" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including Vicente Topasna Borja, challenged the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and Hawaii’s Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act (UMOVA). Borja, a former Hawaii resident now living in Guam, argued that these laws violate equal protection by allowing former Hawaii residents who move abroad or to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to vote absentee in Hawaii’s federal elections, while those who move to other U.S. Territories cannot.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the enforcement of UOCAVA but granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the plaintiffs did not have a fundamental right to vote in Hawaii’s federal elections and that those who move from a state to a territory are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Therefore, the court applied rational basis review and concluded that UOCAVA and UMOVA satisfied this standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, applies to UOCAVA and UMOVA’s overseas voting provisions. The court reasoned that these laws do not deprive residents within a geographically defined governmental unit from voting in a unit-wide election nor dilute the voting power of qualified voters within Hawaii. The court found that the differential treatment of former Hawaii residents who move to other U.S. Territories versus those who move abroad or to the CNMI is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. The court also rejected the argument that individuals who move from Hawaii to other U.S. Territories constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class warranting heightened scrutiny.The Ninth Circuit concluded that UOCAVA and UMOVA’s classifications satisfy rational basis review and affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants. View "BORJA V. NAGO" on Justia Law

In Illinois, voters can cast their ballots by mail, and election officials can receive and count these ballots for up to two weeks after Election Day, provided they are postmarked or certified by Election Day. Plaintiffs, including Illinois voters and political candidates, challenged this procedure, arguing it unlawfully extends the voting period and dilutes their votes. They also claimed it forced them to spend additional resources on their campaigns beyond Election Day. The district court dismissed their claims, ruling that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and also rejected the claims on the merits.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, concluding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Illinois ballot receipt procedure. The court found that Plaintiffs did not allege a sufficient injury in fact, as their claims of vote dilution and additional campaign expenditures were deemed too speculative and generalized. Plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege a concrete and particularized injury. The court found that any potential vote dilution would affect all Illinois voters equally, making it a generalized grievance. Additionally, the court determined that the claimed campaign expenditures were speculative and not directly traceable to the Illinois ballot receipt procedure. Therefore, the court concluded that Plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for Article III standing and affirmed the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

ACORN International sued the Montana Secretary of State, Christi Jacobsen, seeking records to justify the costs of accessing the Montana voter file and a declaratory judgment that the Secretary violated the "right to know" provisions of the Montana Constitution. The Secretary charges $1,000 for a one-time request or $5,000 for an annual subscription to the voter file. ACORN argued these fees were unreasonably high and not justified under the law.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, ruling that the fees were lawful. The court did not address ACORN's claim regarding the violation of the "right to know" provisions.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the fees charged by the Secretary for access to the voter file are lawful under Montana law, as they reflect the actual costs of maintaining the voter registration system, Montana VOTES. The court also found that the fees do not violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) because the NVRA does not specifically address electronic voter databases. Additionally, the court ruled that the Secretary did not violate ACORN's "right to know" under the Montana Constitution, as the Secretary's response to ACORN's request was reasonable given the information provided.The main holdings are that the Secretary's fees for the voter file are lawful and do not violate the NVRA, and that there was no violation of the "right to know" provisions of the Montana Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling. View "ACORN International v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Indiana's ballot access laws by the Indiana Green Party, the Libertarian Party of Indiana, and associated individuals. They argue that the requirements for candidates to collect signatures amounting to 2% of the votes cast in the last Secretary of State election, the process for submitting petitions, and the early deadline for submission are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They also challenge the law's indexing of party-level access to the results of the most recent Secretary of State election.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Indiana’s Secretary of State. The district court concluded that the 2% signature requirement and the June 30 deadline for submitting petitions were constitutionally permissible, relying on precedent from the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit. The court did not address the burdens created by the county-level submission requirement or the challenge to the indexing of the full slate access option.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Indiana's ballot access requirements do not impose severe burdens on the plaintiffs' rights. The 2% signature requirement, the June 30 deadline, and the county-level submission process were deemed reasonable and justified by the state's interests in preventing voter confusion and ensuring orderly elections. The court also found that the requirement for parties to garner 2% of the vote in the Secretary of State election to maintain full slate access was reasonable, given the alternative petitioning route available to candidates. The court concluded that the state's regulatory interests were sufficient to justify the challenged restrictions. View "Indiana Green Party v. Morales" on Justia Law

Colby Jenkins contested the results of the 2024 primary election for the Utah Republican Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Utah’s Second Congressional District. After a recount, election officials determined that Celeste Maloy had won by a narrow margin. Jenkins challenged the rejection of certain ballots that were deemed untimely because they were not postmarked by the deadline specified in Utah’s election code. He argued that these ballots were mailed before election day but were delayed in receiving a postmark due to variations in U.S. Postal Service practices.The Lieutenant Governor questioned whether Jenkins had the standing to assert constitutional arguments on behalf of the voters whose ballots were not counted. However, the court did not need to decide on this issue because Jenkins failed to establish that he was entitled to the relief he sought. Jenkins argued that the statutory postmark requirement resulted in unequal treatment of voters and interfered with the fundamental right to vote. However, he did not adequately brief these constitutional arguments, failing to cite relevant case law or provide sufficient analysis.The Utah Supreme Court denied Jenkins’s petition for extraordinary relief. The court held that Jenkins did not meet his burden of demonstrating a constitutional violation. Specifically, Jenkins did not show that election officials failed to comply with any statutory mandate, nor did he provide adequate legal support for his claims that the postmark requirement was unconstitutional. The court concluded that voters could ensure their ballots were timely postmarked by mailing them well in advance or by taking them directly to the post office. Therefore, the petition was denied. View "Jenkins v. Beaver County" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Election Integrity Project California, Inc., and ten former political candidates, challenged the California Secretary of State’s certification of the November 2020 general election results and sought to declare California’s vote-by-mail election system unconstitutional. They alleged that state and county officials diluted the voting power of in-person voters and voters in certain counties by inadvertently counting some invalid vote-by-mail ballots.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim. The district court concluded that even if all the plaintiffs’ allegations were true, they failed to state plausible claims of constitutional violations in the administration of California’s elections. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ vote dilution claim failed as a matter of law because they did not show disproportionate voting power for some voters over others. The court found that any effect of counting invalid vote-by-mail ballots was the same for all votes, regardless of voting method or geography. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that California’s election laws and county practices violated the Equal Protection Clause, finding that the state’s election rules and practices satisfied the requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations of election irregularities did not plausibly demonstrate the scale of disenfranchisement or lack of integrity necessary to state a due process claim.Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs a further opportunity to amend their complaint, as any further amendment would likely prove futile. The court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims without leave to amend. View "ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA, INC. V. WEBER" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Re-Enfranchisement Act, which allows individuals convicted of felony-level offenses to vote once they are no longer incarcerated. The plaintiffs, individual taxpayers and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, argued that the Act violates the Minnesota Constitution by restoring only the right to vote rather than all civil rights. They also claimed that using public funds to educate and notify people about the new voting provision is unlawful if the Act itself is unconstitutional.The district court denied the petition, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court determined that taxpayer standing requires a challenge to an illegal expenditure or waste of tax money, which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate. The court also found that the Minnesota Voters Alliance lacked associational standing because its members did not have standing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court clarified that taxpayer standing exists only when the central dispute involves alleged unlawful disbursements of public funds. The court held that the plaintiffs could not manufacture standing by pointing to incidental expenditures related to implementing the law. Since the plaintiffs' challenge was primarily against the substantive law itself and not the expenditures, they lacked the necessary standing. Consequently, the Minnesota Voters Alliance also lacked associational standing. The court did not address the merits of the case due to the lack of standing. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Hunt" on Justia Law