Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

A group of Baltimore City registered voters, led by Anthony J. Ambridge, filed a petition seeking judicial review of a proposed amendment to the Baltimore City Charter, known as "Question F," which was to appear on the 2024 general election ballot. The petitioners argued that the proposed charter amendment was not proper "charter material" and that the ballot language was not understandable. The Maryland State Board of Elections opposed the petition, arguing that the claims were barred by laches and that the judicial review mechanism used by the petitioners was inappropriate.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County ruled in favor of the petitioners, determining that the claims were not barred by laches and could be raised under the judicial review mechanism. The court found that Question F violated Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution as it was not proper charter material and that the ballot language was not easily understandable by voters. The court ordered that the results of Question F should not be certified.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that EL § 9-209(a) is not a proper mechanism to challenge whether a proposed charter amendment is proper charter material or whether the ballot language meets the standards for understandability. The Court also held that the petitioners' claims were barred by laches due to the unreasonable delay in filing the petition, which caused prejudice to the State Board, the City, and the electorate. The Court further concluded that the ballot language conveyed, with minimum reasonable clarity, the actual scope and effect of the measure, allowing voters to make an informed choice. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the appellants. View "State Bd. of Elections v. Ambridge" on Justia Law

Henry Strickland contested the results of a city commissioner election in Waycross, Georgia, after losing to Alvin Nelson. Strickland argued that the election used an outdated 2005 map of voting districts instead of the correct 2011 map, resulting in 32 voters casting ballots in the wrong districts. The trial court agreed, finding that the use of the 2005 map could have affected the election outcome, which Nelson won by 18 votes. Consequently, the court vacated the election and ordered a new one to be held in November 2024 using the 2011 map.The trial court denied Nelson's motion to dismiss Strickland's petition for insufficient process and service of process and rejected Nelson's argument that the petition should be dismissed for lack of expeditious pursuit. The court found irregularities in the election due to the use of the 2005 map and ordered a new election. Nelson appealed the trial court's decision, and the Supreme Court of Georgia granted his request for a stay pending the appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the 2011 map was never effective because the required filings with the Secretary of State and the clerk of the superior court, as mandated by OCGA § 36-35-5, were never made. Since the 2011 map was not effective at the time of the election, there was no basis for the trial court's conclusion that enough illegal or irregular votes were counted to change or cast doubt on the election outcome. Therefore, Strickland's petition was rejected, and the trial court's order vacating the election was reversed. View "NELSON v. STRICKLAND" on Justia Law

Mike Ontiveroz filed a petition to contest the 2021 election results for village president of Glendale Heights, where Jean Kaczmarek, the Du Page County Clerk, certified the results showing Chodri Ma Khokhar winning by two votes. Ontiveroz's petition alleged election irregularities but did not include verification affidavits or an allegation that he voted in the election, as required by statute.The Du Page County circuit court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing the absence of verification affidavits within the statutory 30-day period. Ontiveroz later attempted to amend the petition to include the affidavits, but the court maintained its dismissal. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the subsequent verification sufficed for jurisdiction and that Ontiveroz adequately alleged grounds for contesting the election results. However, the appellate court did not address the issue of whether Ontiveroz had alleged that he voted, as Kaczmarek had not raised this point.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and held that courts have an independent duty to consider jurisdictional issues, even if not raised by the parties. The court found that Ontiveroz's petition did not meet the statutory requirements because it lacked both the verification affidavits filed within the 30-day period and the necessary allegation that he voted in the election. Consequently, the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the appellate court's judgment and affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that compliance with statutory requirements is essential for conferring jurisdiction in election contest cases. View "Ontiveroz v. Khokhar" on Justia Law

The Wisconsin Voter Alliance filed identical petitions for writ of mandamus against the registers in probate for 13 circuit courts in Wisconsin, seeking access to Notice of Voting Eligibility (NVE) forms under Wisconsin’s public records law. These forms document when a court finds an individual incompetent to vote. The Alliance argued that they needed this information to ensure the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) was updating voter records accurately.The Walworth County Circuit Court dismissed the Alliance’s petition, agreeing with the register in probate, Kristina Secord, that the NVE forms were exempt from disclosure under Wisconsin Statute § 54.75. The Alliance appealed to the Court of Appeals, District II. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals, District IV, had already ruled in a similar case (Reynolds) that NVE forms were exempt from disclosure under the same statute, affirming the Juneau County Circuit Court’s dismissal of the Alliance’s petition.In the current case, the Court of Appeals, District II, issued a split opinion. The majority held that the Alliance was entitled to the NVE forms, possibly with redactions, and reversed the circuit court’s dismissal. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that District II violated the precedent set by Cook v. Cook, which mandates that the Court of Appeals must follow prior published opinions unless overruled by the Supreme Court.The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that District II was bound by the Reynolds decision and should have either certified the appeal to the Supreme Court or adhered to the prior opinion while expressing its disagreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, District II, and remanded the case with instructions to follow the precedent established in Reynolds. View "Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord" on Justia Law

Irva E. Reed sought to run for a seat on the Montgomery County Commission in 2024. She submitted her qualifying papers to the Montgomery County Democratic Party in November 2023 and confirmed she would submit a "Statement of Economic Interests" (SEI) to the Alabama Ethics Commission within five days, as required by Alabama law. However, she filed her SEI 41 days late. The Director of the Commission informed the Party that Reed was not qualified to appear on the ballot. Reed requested a five-day extension due to illness, but the Commission denied her request.Reed then sued the Director, the Chairman of the Commission, and the Secretary of State in their official capacities in the Montgomery Circuit Court, seeking a judgment declaring her illness as a valid reason for the delay and an injunction to place her name on the ballot. The trial court granted her request for a preliminary injunction, ordering the Commission and the Party to certify Reed as a candidate. The defendants appealed the trial court's order, and the Supreme Court of Alabama stayed the injunction while addressing the appeal.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo and found that Reed's claim was moot because the election had already occurred. The court held that a judgment in Reed's favor would not affect the rights of the parties. The court also determined that none of the exceptions to mootness cited by Reed—capable of repetition but evading review, public interest, and collateral rights—applied in this case. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed the appeal and instructed the trial court to dissolve the injunction and dismiss Reed's complaint. View "Plunk v. Reed" on Justia Law

In the 2024 general election for State Representative, District 39 in Hawaii, the two candidates were Republican Elijah Pierick and Democrat Corey Rosenlee. The election was primarily conducted by mail, with in-person voting available at voter service centers. The City Clerk of Honolulu was responsible for mailing and receiving ballots, while the State Office of Elections handled the counting. After the election, Pierick received 4,712 votes, and Rosenlee received 4,701 votes, with a vote differential of 11 in favor of Pierick. Rosenlee contested the election results, alleging mistakes in the handling of return identification envelopes and long lines at voter service centers.Rosenlee filed an election contest with the Supreme Court of Hawaii on November 25, 2024. He claimed that the Clerk made mistakes in reviewing signatures on return identification envelopes, only mailing notice of deficiencies, and managing in-person voting lines. He also alleged that the Clerk's actions violated equal protection and due process. The defendants filed motions for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that no mistakes were made and that Rosenlee failed to provide evidence to support his claims.The Supreme Court of Hawaii reviewed the evidence and found that the Clerk followed the proper procedures for validating signatures on return identification envelopes. The court concluded that Rosenlee did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that any mistakes by the Clerk affected the election results. The court also found that the Clerk provided reasonable notice and opportunity for voters to cure deficiencies in their return identification envelopes. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendants and confirmed Pierick's election as State Representative, District 39. The court ordered the Chief Election Officer to deliver the certificate of election to Pierick. View "Rosenlee v. Takahashi " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Chris Robles and the California Voting Rights Initiative filed a lawsuit against the City of Ontario, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act and the California Voting Rights Act by conducting at-large elections for city council members, which they claimed diluted the electoral influence of Latino voters. The parties eventually settled, agreeing to transition to district-based elections by 2024 and included a provision for attorney fees incurred up to that point.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County initially sustained the defendants' demurrer with leave to amend, but the parties settled and submitted a stipulated judgment. The stipulated judgment included a provision for $300,000 in attorney fees and outlined the process for transitioning to district elections. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to enforce the stipulated judgment, alleging the city violated several statutory requirements related to the districting process. The trial court found the city had not complied with the stipulated judgment but denied plaintiffs' request for additional attorney fees, stating the settlement did not provide for fees beyond those already paid.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek additional attorney fees under the plain language of the stipulated judgment, which allowed for fees incurred in enforcing its terms. The court reversed the trial court's order denying attorney fees and remanded the case to determine whether plaintiffs were prevailing parties and, if so, the appropriate amount of attorney fees to be awarded. The appellate court clarified that the trial court's assessment of the prevailing party should focus on whether the plaintiffs achieved their litigation objectives. View "Robles v. City of Ontario" on Justia Law

The plaintiff sought to register as a write-in candidate for the United States representative for the Third Congressional District of Connecticut in the November 2024 election. She claimed her registration was untimely due to following outdated guidance from the defendant, the Secretary of the State, which quoted an old version of the statute governing write-in candidacies. The plaintiff requested an order directing the defendant to accept her registration.The Superior Court previously dismissed the plaintiff's attempts to obtain relief for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff then brought this action under General Statutes § 9-323, seeking an emergency hearing to challenge the defendant's decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the case was not moot despite being heard after election day, as practical relief was still available. The court found that the plaintiff was aggrieved by the defendant's ruling, as the untimely filing was allegedly due to erroneous information provided by the defendant's office.Assuming without deciding that courts have the authority to excuse noncompliance with mandatory filing deadlines due to election official actions, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The court noted that the correct deadline was clearly stated in both the cover letter and the registration form, and the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in resolving the apparent discrepancy.The court denied the plaintiff's request for an injunction and rendered judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff's lack of due diligence did not warrant equitable relief from the mandatory statutory deadline. View "Whitnum Baker v. Secretary of the State" on Justia Law

In May 2024, Tabitha Ponder ran for a seat on the Georgia Court of Appeals but lost to Jeffrey Davis. Three weeks after the election, Ponder and Randolph Frails filed an election contest petition, claiming Davis was not a Georgia resident and thus not qualified to run. They appealed the superior court's dismissal of their petition.Before the election, Frails alone challenged Davis's qualifications under OCGA § 21-2-5, alleging Davis was not a Georgia resident. An administrative law judge initially found Davis had not proven his residency, but the Secretary of State later determined Davis met the residency requirement. Frails then sought judicial review and an emergency hearing but did not request to stay the election. The superior court dismissed Frails's petition as moot after the election results were certified, and Frails did not appeal this decision.On June 11, Ponder and Frails filed a post-election contest petition, again challenging Davis's residency and seeking to have Ponder declared the winner. The superior court dismissed their petition, citing defective verifications and their failure to act promptly. Ponder and Frails appealed, arguing errors in the superior court's rulings.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and emphasized the importance of resolving election disputes before the election occurs. The court noted that neither Ponder nor Frails took sufficient steps to expedite their claims before the election. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits, citing prudential reasons to avoid invalidating elections after the fact when challengers fail to act with dispatch. The appeal was dismissed. View "Ponder v. Davis" on Justia Law

Christina Peterson, representing herself, challenged the qualifications of Valerie Vie as a candidate for probate court judge in Douglas County, Georgia. Peterson claimed that Vie had not been a resident of Douglas County for the required time to run for the office. Peterson initially filed a challenge with the local Board of Elections, which was denied. She then filed a petition for review in superior court, which was also denied. After the primary election, which Vie won, Peterson filed a second petition in superior court challenging the election results on the same grounds.The local Board of Elections held a hearing and denied Peterson's challenge. Peterson then filed a petition for review in the superior court, which was also denied. Peterson did not seek to stay the primary election and filed an application for discretionary appeal with the Supreme Court of Georgia, which was denied. Subsequently, Peterson filed a post-primary petition in superior court, which was dismissed on the grounds of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and mootness due to her failure to seek a stay of the primary election.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and dismissed Peterson's appeal. The court held that parties seeking to challenge election results must act with dispatch to resolve disputes before the election occurs. Peterson failed to expedite her challenges and did not seek a stay of the primary election. The court emphasized the importance of resolving election disputes promptly to avoid unnecessary expenses and ensure the finality of election results. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of Peterson's claims. View "Peterson v. Vie" on Justia Law