Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs brought lawsuits challenging the validity of the 2012 congressional apportionment plan (Plan) under the Florida Constitution's redistricting standards. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Florida state legislators and legislative staff members had an absolute privilege against testifying as to issues directly relevant to whether the Legislature drew the Plan with unconstitutional partisan or discriminatory intent. The circuit court permitted the discovery of information and communications, including the testimony of legislators, pertaining to the constitutional validity of the Plan. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the legislators had the absolute protection of a legislative privilege. The Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's decision and approved the circuit court's order, holding (1) Florida recognizes a legislative privilege founded on the constitutional principle of separation of powers; but (2) this privilege is not absolute where, as in this case, the purposes underlying the privilege are outweighed by the compelling, competing interest of effectuating the explicit constitutional mandate that prohibits partisan political gerrymandering and improper discriminatory intent in redistricting.View "League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Fla. House of Representatives" on Justia Law

In the second year following each Federal decennial census, the Maryland Constitution provides that the Governor and State Legislature shall reapportion the State's legislative representation in accordance with the State's current demographics. At issue before the Court of Appeals in this case was the validity of Maryland's most recently enacted legislative apportionment plan. Three petitions challenging the enacted plan were filed. After a hearing, a Court of Appeals' Special Master denied each petitioner's petition and issued his recommendation that the enacted legislative apportionment plan be upheld against each of the challenges. The Court of Appeals supported the order of the Special Master, holding that Petitioners' exceptions to the Special Master's findings and recommendations were without merit. View "In re 2012 Legislative Districting of the State" on Justia Law

Proponents Mike Spaulding and Natalie Menten proposed Initiative 76 which sought to repeal and replace the existing manner of triggering and conducting a recall election under article XXI of the Colorado Constitution, and to institute a new constitutional right to recall state and local non-elected officers. The Title Board set a title and submission clause for the initiative. Registered elector Philip Hayes objected to the Board's action. The Board modified the title and submission clause in response to Hayes' objections, but otherwise denied his motion for rehearing. The proponents contended that the initiative, title and submission clause addressed a single subject and were in compliance with state law. The Supreme Court disagreed, and concluded the Title Board acted unconstitutionally in setting a title for the initiative. The Board's action was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #76" on Justia Law

Proponents Peter Coulter and Lisa Brumfiel proposed Initiative 129 to amend article X, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, known as the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). The Initiative sought to amend TABOR to define the term "fee" and differentiate it from a tax. Petitioner Anthony sought to challenge the initiative, arguing it contained multiple subjects. Alternatively, he argued the initiative's title was misleading. The Supreme Court concluded the initiative contained a single subject, and that the title clearly expressed a single subject. Therefore the Court affirmed the action of the Title Board. View "In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #129" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Patricia Working, Rick Erdemir, and Floyd McGinnis appealed a circuit court judgment that held that the Jefferson County Election Commission ("the JCEC"), Probate Judge Alan King, Circuit Clerk Anne-Marie Adams, and Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale were immune from liability as to the plaintiffs' attorney fees. In "Working I," the Supreme Court held that a February special election was invalid on state-law grounds, and that the Governor's appointment of George Bowman to fill a vacancy on the Election Commission was lawful. On remand to the circuit court, as the "prevailing parties," plaintiffs moved for attorney fees. The trial court denied their motion, and plaintiffs appealed. In "Working II," the Supreme Court addressed plaintiffs' that the trial court erred in denying their motion for mediation, and vacated the trial court's order denying the motion for an award of attorney fees and remanded the case. On remand, the trial court concluded that the JCEC defendants had not waived their immunity defense and that plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees against defendants was precluded by the Alabama Constitution as to plaintiffs' state-law claims. Plaintiffs then filed this third, appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded the case once again to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the issue of immunity and state-law claims, but remanded remand the case with instructions on the issue concerning section 6–6–20 and the federal-law claims. View "Working v. Jefferson County Election Commission" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former Jerauld County State's Attorney, brought a quo warranto action seeking to oust Defendant, the newly-elected State's Attorney, claiming Defendant did not qualify for and was not entitled to the office of Jerauld County State's Attorney. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that Defendant was the rightful holder of the office and was legally entitled to it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because there was no evidence that Defendant usurped, intruded into, unlawfully held, or exercised the public office of Jerauld County State's Attorney, the circuit court correctly denied quo warranto relief. View "Bridgman v. Koch" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case related to the service of four members of the Board of Directors for the Southern Valley County Recreation District. The State brought usurpation actions against Donald Keithly, Yvette Davis, Patrick Cowles, and Michael Smith (the Directors), alleging they usurped their offices as directors of the Recreation District. The State requested they be removed from office and sought a fine against each of them. Upon the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that this action was an election contest, rather than a usurpation action, which could be brought by the State. The district court also ruled that the Directors' actions while in office were protected by the de facto officer doctrine. The State appealed, arguing this was a proper usurpation action and the de facto officer doctrine did not apply. The Directors cross-appealed, arguing they are entitled to attorney fees. The Supreme Court concluded the matter was moot and affirmed the district court's order denying attorney fees. View "Idaho v. Keithly" on Justia Law

This case arose from a political battle concerning labor unions. Chula Vista Citizens and the Associations sought to place an initiative on the Chula Vista municipal ballot. The City of Chula Vista requires that initiative proponents be electors (the elector requirement). Because Cal. Elec. Code 9202(a) requires proponents to sign a notice of intent, the effect of Cal. Elec. Code 9207 is that the identities of official proponents are disclosed to would-be signatories of the petition (the petition-proponent disclosure requirement). Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the elector and petition-proponent disclosure requirements, both facially and as applied, violated the First Amendment. Determining that the elector requirement was properly before the court because it implicated the chilling of expression and because the parties had not indicated that there were many pending actions in the California courts, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants as to the elector requirement where the Associations did not have a First Amendment right to serve as official proponents of local ballot initiatives. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants as to the petition-proponent disclosure requirement where the requirement was unconstitutional because they require official initiative proponents to identify themselves on the face of initiative petitions. View "Chula Vista Citizens v. Norris" on Justia Law

The Pulaski County Election Commission (PCEC) filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the circuit court challenging the constitutionality of certain emergency rules promulgated by the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners (ASBEC) relating to absentee voters. The circuit court declared (1) the emergency rules were derivative of Act 595 of 2013, which amended the Arkansas election code to require that voters provide proof of identity when voting; (2) the Act was unconstitutional; and (3) the emergency rules were also unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly ruled that the rules relating to absentee voters promulgated by the ASBEC were unconstitutional; but (2) the circuit court erred in declaring the Act unconstitutional, as that issue was not pled or developed before the court. View "State Bd. of Election Comm'rs v. Pulaski County Election Comm’n" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed a petition for extraordinary writ relief concerning certain documents in the possession of Respondents, non-parties to litigation regarding the constitutional validity of the 2012 plan apportioning Florida’s congressional districts under the Fair Districts Amendments. Petitioners contended that the documents demonstrated “the surreptitious participation of partisan operatives in the apportionment process," but the First District Court of Appeal precluded the admission of the documents. The Supreme Court granted relief to Petitioners and stayed the enforcement of the First District’s order, holding that the circuit court was not precluded from admitting the documents into evidence, subject to a proper showing of relevancy, but that the court must maintain the confidentiality of the documents by permitting disclosure or use only under seal in a courtroom closed to the public. View "League of Women Voters v. Data Targeting, Inc." on Justia Law