Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

A resident of Lebanon County submitted a request under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) to obtain the cast vote records (CVRs) for each precinct and the central tabulator used in the 2020 General Election in Lycoming County. The Lycoming County Office of Voter Services denied the request, asserting that CVRs constituted the “contents of ballot boxes and voting machines,” which are exempt from public disclosure under Section 308 of the Election Code. Following administrative appeal, the Office of Open Records upheld the denial based on affidavits that characterized CVRs as the digital equivalent of individual ballots.The case was then appealed to the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court determined that the original requester lacked standing but allowed three Lycoming County voters to intervene. The court found that “contents of ballot boxes and voting machines” referred only to physical ballots and the mechanical workings of voting machines, not to digital data or CVRs. It ordered disclosure of the CVRs, finding no violation of ballot secrecy, especially given data randomization. The Department of State and Voter Services appealed, and the Commonwealth Court reversed. The Commonwealth Court concluded that CVRs fell within the meaning of “contents” and that voting machines, as used in the Election Code, included electronic systems like those in Lycoming County.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and reversed the Commonwealth Court. It held that CVRs are not the “contents of ballot boxes and voting machines” as those terms are used in Section 308 of the Election Code. Therefore, CVRs are not exempt from disclosure and are required to be made public under the Election Code’s provisions for public access to election records. The Court clarified that disclosure of CVRs, as randomized in Lycoming County, does not violate the constitutional requirement of ballot secrecy. View "Honey v. Lycoming Co. Offices of Voter Svcs." on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization focused on election integrity requested that Hawaii’s State Elections Office provide a statewide list of registered voters, citing a provision in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) that allows for public inspection of certain election records. Hawaii’s State Elections Office declined to provide the statewide list and recommended that the organization seek separate county-level lists from each of the four County Clerks, as the Office does not maintain or distribute such a combined list. After receiving this response, the organization sought injunctive and declaratory relief in federal court, arguing that the NVRA entitled it to the statewide voter list.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed the action, holding that the organization’s claim was not ripe because it had not first requested the information from the counties. The court found there was no Article III jurisdiction, as the organization had not suffered a concrete injury and could still pursue county-level records. The district court allowed time for the organization to amend its complaint if its claims became ripe, but the organization declined, maintaining that the NVRA required disclosure by the State. Final judgment was entered, and the organization appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the organization did have standing, as the denial of information requested under the NVRA constitutes a sufficient injury for Article III purposes. The appellate court also found the claim to be ripe, as the State had made clear it would not provide the requested information. However, on the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that the NVRA does not require disclosure of a statewide voter list, as such a list is not a record “concerning the implementation” of list-maintenance programs under the statute. The court therefore affirmed dismissal, but on the merits, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claim with prejudice. View "PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. V. NAGO" on Justia Law

Three individuals, Barbara Moore, Vanessa Reed, and Christine Burrell, served as members of the Lipscomb City Council, each representing a different district. After a city council meeting in May 2025, the council rejected a proposed redistricting plan and resolved to keep district boundaries unchanged. However, in the August 2025 municipal election, the election was conducted using the rejected redistricting map. Despite this, the three council members were sworn into office for their respective districts under the original boundaries. Mayor Robin Sims, claiming the council members no longer met residency requirements due to the district lines used in the election, filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO), a permanent injunction, and a writ of quo warranto, seeking their removal from office.The Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division, issued the TRO, then granted the writ of quo warranto and the permanent injunction, finding that the council members did not meet the statutory residency requirements and declaring their seats vacant. The court denied the council members’ motion to dismiss and their subsequent postjudgment motion, holding that they were unlawfully occupying their seats. The court also denied their request to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the statutory requirement that an informant provide security for costs at the commencement of a quo warranto action was not satisfied. The bond posted was solely for the injunction, not for the quo warranto proceeding. Because this requirement is jurisdictional, the trial court’s judgment was void. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to vacate its judgment. View "Moore v. State of Alabama ex rel. Mayor Sims" on Justia Law

A nonprofit political advocacy organization challenged a set of municipal campaign finance rules adopted by a California city after a history of local government scandals involving city officials and local business interests. The ballot measure, approved by 82% of city voters, imposed per candidate contribution limits for individuals and political action committees, as well as aggregate contribution limits, for city elections. The measure was adopted in response to a series of incidents where city officials accepted valuable gifts or travel from local business figures and subsequently took official actions arguably benefiting those providers. A district attorney’s investigation and report, media coverage, and a resident survey indicating strong public demand for accountability preceded the measure.After the measure took effect, the advocacy organization sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, arguing that the per candidate and aggregate contribution limits violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Both sides filed for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the city, holding that the per candidate limits were justified by a sufficiently important governmental interest and closely drawn to that interest, and that the aggregate limits did not impermissibly discriminate against candidates who also supported ballot measures. The court also upheld a related gift ban, but the plaintiffs did not appeal that aspect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the city established an important governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, and that the contribution limits were closely drawn, not unconstitutionally low, and comparable to other cities’ limits. The court further found that the aggregate limits were constitutional, as they did not apply to ballot measure committees. Thus, the city’s campaign finance limits were upheld. View "MOVING OXNARD FORWARD, INC. V. LOPEZ" on Justia Law

An Adams County elector challenged the voter registration of the county prosecuting attorney, alleging that the prosecutor did not actually reside at his registered address in Adams County but instead lived with his family in Hamilton County. The challenger, a qualified elector from Clermont County, submitted evidence including property records, water usage data, and vehicle registrations to support his claim that the prosecutor’s declared residence was not legitimate. The Adams County Board of Elections denied the challenge on two occasions, each time relying solely on its own records and declining to hold a hearing.After the initial challenge was denied, the challenger sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Ohio to cancel the prosecutor’s voter registration. The court denied the writ, finding that the relief had not been properly pleaded and declining to address the alternative request for a hearing. In response, the challenger filed a new challenge with the board and, after a second denial without a hearing, again sought mandamus relief from the Supreme Court of Ohio, this time explicitly requesting an order compelling the board to conduct a hearing on his challenge.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither claim preclusion nor issue preclusion barred the action, as the new challenge and denial were distinct from the earlier proceeding and the factual question of residency had never been adjudicated in a quasi-judicial hearing. The court found that the challenger had standing under the statute and that the board abused its discretion by denying the challenge without a hearing when its own records were insufficient to resolve the dispute. The court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Adams County Board of Elections to hold a hearing within ten days on the challenge. The court also denied the board’s request for sanctions against the challenger. View "State ex rel. Hicks v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of voting in more than one state during the 2016 general election. He maintained residences in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts and was alleged to have voted in Holderness, New Hampshire by absentee ballot and in Belmont, Massachusetts in person. The State introduced evidence of his voting history in both states from 1996 to 2018 and sought to exclude statements by an acquaintance, William Botelho, who had previously admitted to voting in the defendant's name in Massachusetts.The Grafton County Superior Court allowed the State to admit the defendant’s prior voting records under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b) and excluded Botelho’s statements as inadmissible propensity evidence, also denying the defendant’s request for a Richards hearing regarding Botelho’s potential testimony. After a jury found the defendant guilty, the Superior Court denied his post-trial motions for dismissal based on territorial jurisdiction, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and to set aside the verdict.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire found that the Superior Court erred in admitting the defendant’s prior voting history because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value, especially since the prior alleged acts were nearly identical to the charged crime. The court also held that evidence of Botelho’s confession to voting in the defendant’s name in the 2016 election was not evidence of other bad acts under Rule 404(b) and should not have been categorically excluded. The Supreme Court further ruled that, if Botelho asserts his Fifth Amendment rights on remand, the trial court must hold a Richards hearing.The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motions regarding territorial jurisdiction, sufficiency, and weight of the evidence, but reversed the conviction due to the evidentiary errors and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Rosen" on Justia Law

Two individuals challenged the Puerto Rican electoral commission and its acting president, arguing that restrictions on early and absentee voting during the 2020 general election unlawfully burdened the right to vote for citizens over sixty, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2020, they brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief on constitutional grounds. The district court promptly issued a preliminary injunction, then a permanent injunction, allowing voters over sixty to vote early by mail. After judgment, the plaintiffs were awarded nearly $65,000 in attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.While the fee motion was pending, Puerto Rico’s government was in the process of debt restructuring under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). The restructuring plan, confirmed in January 2022, discharged claims against Puerto Rico arising before the plan’s effective date unless creditors filed proof of claim by a set deadline. Defendants argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico that the attorneys’ fees award was subject to the plan’s discharge and enjoined from collection, because the plaintiffs had not filed a timely administrative expense claim. The district court rejected this, finding the fee award unrelated to the bankruptcy case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that the claim for attorneys’ fees, though arising from post-petition litigation, related to events before the plan’s effective date. The court held that because the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the restructuring proceedings but did not file a timely proof of claim, their fee claim was discharged under the confirmed plan and enjoined from collection. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s order, holding that the discharge injunction applied to the attorneys’ fee award. View "Ocasio v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones" on Justia Law

A group of business and industry associations challenged the Montana Attorney General’s March 6, 2026 determination that Proposed Ballot Measure No. 10 was legally sufficient to proceed in the initiative process. Ballot Measure No. 10 sought to amend state law by defining “artificial persons” and excluding “political spending power” from the rights granted to such entities. The challengers argued that the measure was facially unconstitutional because it restricted political speech, was vague, and improperly conditioned benefits on the waiver of constitutional rights.The challenge was brought directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana under its original jurisdiction. The Attorney General had performed only a procedural review, declining to address the measure’s substantive constitutionality due to a prior order by the First Judicial District Court in Ellingson v. State, which had enjoined the statutory provision that would have allowed such substantive review. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to require the Attorney General to review the measure’s constitutionality and to reverse his finding of legal sufficiency.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General does not have authority to consider the substantive constitutionality of proposed ballot initiatives during legal sufficiency review under current law and precedent. The Court reaffirmed that pre-election constitutional challenges to initiatives are generally disfavored, as the people have a constitutional right to use the initiative process. Because Ballot Measure No. 10 had not yet qualified for the ballot, the Court declined to address the merits of the constitutional arguments, finding such review would be advisory. The Court denied and dismissed the petition, and also denied as moot motions to intervene and to file amicus briefs. View "Montana Mining Assn. v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

Get Loud Arkansas and other plaintiffs challenged an Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners rule that required all voter registration applications to have a handwritten or “wet” signature, excluding digital or electronic signatures. The controversy arose after Get Loud developed an online voter registration tool, which allowed applicants to sign digitally and resulted in a significant increase in voter registrations, particularly among young voters. Following publicity about the tool’s success, the Arkansas Secretary of State instructed county clerks to reject electronically signed applications. Despite an opinion by the Arkansas Attorney General affirming the legality of electronic signatures, the Board adopted a rule requiring wet signatures, which forced Get Loud to modify its operations, reduce the effectiveness of its registration efforts, and expend additional resources.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, arguing that the rule violated the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), which prohibits denying the right to vote based on immaterial errors or omissions on voter registration applications. The district court found that the rule likely violated federal law and granted a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the wet signature requirement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Get Loud had standing due to direct interference with its core activities. The court concluded that Arkansas’s rule was not material in determining voter qualifications, as election officials did not use signature type to assess eligibility and had previously accepted both wet and digital signatures without issue. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction, holding that enforcing the rule violated the Materiality Provision and that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs. View "Get Loud Arkansas v. Jester" on Justia Law

A candidate, John Calvin Dove, Jr., submitted a certificate of candidacy to run for the Democratic Party nomination for the Maryland House of Delegates in Legislative District 12B for the 2026 gubernatorial election. Gary Simmons challenged Dove’s qualifications, asserting that Dove was not a resident and did not maintain a place of abode in Legislative District 12B at the time he filed his candidacy certificate. Simmons further alleged that Dove had misrepresented his residency on his voter registration and his certificate of candidacy, arguing that these actions rendered Dove ineligible and his candidacy certificate invalid.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County scheduled a hearing on Simmons’s petition, but Dove moved to dismiss, arguing that the constitutional residency requirement only needed to be met six months before the general election, a date which had not yet arrived. The circuit court agreed with Dove, finding the challenge premature and dismissing Simmons’s petition with prejudice, without taking evidence on Dove’s residency or place of abode.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case. The court held that Simmons’s petition was not premature as to his claims under the Election Law Article, which require that a candidate be lawfully registered to vote and reside in the legislative district at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. The court found that such a challenge is ripe for adjudication at the time of filing. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing and a decision on the merits of Simmons’s challenge before set deadlines. The costs were assessed against Dove. View "Simmons v. Dove" on Justia Law