Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2, which would have abolished property taxes, was disapproved by the voters in the June 2012 primary election. Empower the Taxpayer ("Empower"), Charlene Nelson, and Robert Hale supported Measure 2. Before the election, Empower, Nelson, and Hale brought this action against numerous state and local government officials and other entities alleging violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, and sought injunctive relief, including prohibiting the defendants from "advocating any position on Measure 2" and declaring the defendants "no longer eligible to run for public office." The County Defendants sought sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorney under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11, alleging the action against them was frivolous and that it had been brought for an improper purpose. The action was ultimately dismissed by the district court, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. After the action was dismissed, the district court considered the County Defendants' motion for sanctions, concluding a competent attorney could not in good faith have believed that a cause of action existed against the County Defendants. The court therefore ordered reasonable attorney fees and costs for defending against the action and that the plaintiffs prepare a written retraction of their allegations of corruption and impropriety to be published in the major newspapers of the state. Upon review of the sanctions issue, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's orders did not provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision; the Court was unable to adequately understand the basis for the court's decision to review on appeal. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded to the district court to clarify its opinion. View "Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong" on Justia Law

In June 2013, in Pueblo and El Paso County citizens certified petitions to recall State Senator Angela Giron and State Senator John Morse. A month later, the Governor set a September 10 recall election for both Senate seats. This recall election was the first in Colorado's history for members of the General Assembly. The Governor then submitted an Interrogatory to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article VI, section 3,of the Colorado Constitution to ask whether the prior participation requirement in Article XXI, section 3, of the Colorado Constitution conflicted with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Colorado Court issued an Order holding that the prior participation requirement in Article XXI, section 3, conflicted with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. View "In re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Hickenlooper" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Vermont resident and voter, filed a complaint seeking declarations that Barack Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" as required for eligibility to be President in Article II, Clause 4, of the Federal Constitution and was thus unqualified to be on the ballot for the Office of President, and that Mr. Obama's Petition for Nomination for the primary election and filings for the general election were "null and void" because of his ineligibility to hold office. In addition, plaintiff sought an injunction against the Vermont Secretary of State to bar the Secretary from including Mr. Obama's name on the election ballot in Vermont. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit because the claim was "an impermissible generalized grievance." Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal, and subsequently filed a motion in late 2012 for an expedited hearing before this Court in advance of the Joint Session of Congress that would take place on January 6. This Vermont Supreme Court denied the motion. Plaintiff argued this case was not moot because the Court could provide relief by declaring that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen, and asserted that a controversy continues through plaintiff's efforts to safeguard his life, liberty and property. The Vermont Court held this case was moot.View "Paige v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the ballot title for Initiative Petition 12 (2014). Because the Supreme Court concluded that the ballot title did not 4 substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2), it referred it to the Attorney General for modification.View "Rasmussen v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Gloria Richmond Jackson appealed the Circuit Court Special Judge’s dismissal with prejudice of her petition for judicial review of an election contest, which contested the result of a Democratic primary runoff election. Jackson’s petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because she failed to attach two attorney certificates to her petition, as required by statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the special judge erred by dismissing Jackson’s petition with prejudice for the nonmerits issue of lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order of dismissal with prejudice was vacated and the case remanded back to the circuit court special judge with instruction to enter an order dismissing this action without prejudice. View "Jackson v. Bell" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a law providing that citizens who appear in person to vote must present photographic proof of their identity. The statute authorized a photographic identification card issued by the State as a valid form of identification. Plaintiffs were two residents who attempted to vote in the primary election using photographic identification cards issued by the City of Memphis Public Library. The residents and City filed a declaratory judgment action arguing (1) the photographic identification requirement violated constitutional protections, and (2) the City qualified as an entity of the State authorized to issue valid photographic identification cards through its public library. The trial court denied relief. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the photographic identification requirement did not violate constitutional principles, and (2) the photographic identification cards issued by the library complied with the statute for voting purposes. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the issue pertaining to the library cards as photographic identification was moot because a change in the law precluded the use of photographic identification cards issued by municipalities or their libraries for voting purposes; and (2) the photographic identification requirement met constitutional scrutiny. View "City of Memphis v. Hargett" on Justia Law

On July 11, 2012, Appellees filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and mandamus in the circuit court requesting that the court enter an order (1) declaring that the filing period for independent candidates for municipal offices for the City of Helena-West Helena starts July 27, 2012, and (2) mandating that city officials notify election officials of the proper filing date. The circuit court granted the complaint. Appellants filed a motion to intervene on August 6, 2012 and August 8, 2012. The circuit court denied the motions in orders entered October 12, 2012 and October 18, 2012, concluding that both motions were untimely. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Appellants' arguments on appeal because (1) the filing period at issue concerned the now-past November 6, 2012 election; and (2) both Appellants won their respective races in the election.View "Etherly v. Newsome" on Justia Law

Two petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 11 (2014). Among them, petitioners advanced a host of arguments asserting various inadequacies of the ballot title. After careful review, the Supreme Court found the ballot title did not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2). Therefore, the Court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.View "Buehler v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Appellees in this case were seventeen-year-olds who would have been eighteen by the 2008 general election. After exhausting their administrative remedies, Plaintiffs filed separate complaints in the circuit court against the Maryland State Boar of Elections (MSBE), alleging that the MSBE violated several provisions of the Election Law Article by prohibiting seventeen-year-olds who would be eighteen by the next general election from casting any votes in non-partisan primary elections for county school boards. The circuit court concluded that the voter eligibility requirements of the Maryland Constitution did not apply to non-partisan elections for Boards of Education, municipal elections, and local ballot questions not mandated by the Constitution. The Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court and held that seventeen-year-olds who will turn eighteen by close of voter registration before the next general election were constitutionally and statutorily entitled to vote in primary elections, whether partisan or non-partisan, subject to all other provisions of the Constitution and statutory election law. Remanded.View "State Bd. of Elections v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Appellant Green Mountain Future (GMF) appealed the grant of summary judgment, which found that it was a political action committee (PAC) and violated a number of provisions of the Vermont campaign finance laws. GMF argued the trial court erred in not applying a narrowing construction created by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Buckley v. Valeo," (424 U.S. 1 (1976)), to the definition of a PAC under Vermont campaign finance laws, and that without that construction the registration and disclosure laws are unconstitutional under the overbreadth doctrine of the First Amendment and the vagueness doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State cross-appealed the $10,000 civil penalty assigned by the trial court, asserting that that court abused its discretion by misapplying certain factors and imposing a penalty for only one of GMF's violations. This case largely turned on the scope and continuing vitality of the "magic words" that GMF argued were required by "Buckley." GMF argued that its advertisements were purely issue advocacy and did not seek to affect the outcome of an election, in this case for Governor of Vermont. The State argued that GMF's advertisements were transparently employed to defeat the candidacy of Brian Dubie for Governor, although they did not state so explicitly. The Supreme Court held that the "magic words" were not required to make the applicable campaign finance statute constitutional. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision on summary judgment and the civil penalty, except that it remanded for reconsideration of the penalty for the violation of the identification requirement.View "Vermont v. Green Mountain Future" on Justia Law