Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

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

A nominee for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia and the Libertarian Party of Georgia challenged a state law that allows only certain political parties to form "leadership committees" capable of accepting unlimited campaign contributions. The Libertarian Party, classified as a "political body" under Georgia law, was excluded from forming such committees, which they argued violated their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their alleged injury was not traceable to the defendants and could not be redressed by the requested relief. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants had enforced or threatened to enforce the law against them. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined it was moot because the 2022 election had already occurred, and the nominee had lost. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were specific to the 2022 election and did not present a live controversy. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the case fell under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, as there was no reasonable expectation that the same controversy would recur involving the same parties.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court to dismiss it as moot. View "Graham v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the Utah Legislature's repeal and replacement of a citizen initiative known as "Proposition 4," which aimed to reform the state's redistricting process to prevent partisan gerrymandering. Proposition 4, passed by Utah voters in 2018, established an Independent Redistricting Commission and set forth neutral redistricting standards, including a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering. However, before the next redistricting cycle, the Utah Legislature enacted Senate Bill 200 (S.B. 200), which repealed Proposition 4 and replaced it with a new law that did not include the same anti-gerrymandering provisions and weakened the role of the Independent Commission.In the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, the plaintiffs argued that the Legislature's actions violated the Utah Constitution by nullifying the reforms enacted by the people through Proposition 4. The district court dismissed this claim, holding that the Legislature has the authority to amend or repeal any statute, including those enacted by citizen initiative, without limitation. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on two constitutional provisions: the Initiative Provision in article VI, section 1, which grants the people the power to initiate legislation, and the Alter or Reform Clause in article I, section 2, which states that the people have the right to alter or reform their government. The court concluded that these provisions, when read together, limit the Legislature's power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative that reforms the government. The court held that the people’s right to reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from legislative actions that would impair the reform enacted by the people.The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court's dismissal of Count V, which challenged the Legislature's repeal and replacement of Proposition 4, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized that legislative changes to a government-reform initiative must not impair the reform and must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest if they do. View "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature" on Justia Law

The case involves the Upstate Jobs Party (UJP) and two of its leaders who sued the Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections over campaign finance regulations. UJP, an independent body, argued that it is similarly situated to political parties because both nominate candidates that compete in the same elections. UJP claimed that New York's preferential treatment of parties violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. UJP also asserted First Amendment violations, alleging that New York's campaign finance rules distinguishing between parties and independent bodies are not closely drawn to a sufficient state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance thereof.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York determined that differences in contribution limits applicable to parties and independent bodies violate the Fourteenth and the First Amendments. However, it also determined that allowing parties but not independent bodies to maintain so-called “housekeeping accounts” did not violate either amendment. Both UJP and the State Board appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s judgment. The court held that parties and independent bodies are not similarly situated, and that the state’s contribution limits and housekeeping account exception are closely drawn to serve the state’s anticorruption interests. Therefore, the court concluded that the state’s campaign finance laws withstand all constitutional challenges raised. View "Upstate Jobs Party v. Kosinksi" on Justia Law