Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The Galveston County Commissioners Court is composed of four county commissioners, elected from single-member precincts, and one county judge, elected by the entire county. From 1991 to 2021, one of the four commissioner precincts had a majority-minority population, with blacks and Hispanics together accounting for 58 percent of the precinct’s total population as of 2020. In 2021, the Galveston County Commissioners Court enacted a new districting plan for county commissioner elections. The enacted plan does not contain a majority-minority precinct. Following a bench trial, the district court found that the enacted plan dilutes the voting power of the county’s black and Hispanic voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.Galveston County appealed. The panel held that, under existing precedent, distinct minority groups like blacks and Hispanics may be aggregated for purposes of vote dilution claims under Section 2. However, disagreeing with the underlying legal analysis, the panel believed that such precedent should be overturned. Thus, the panel requested a poll for en banc hearing. View "Petteway v. Galveston County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied relief in this expedited election action brought by Brandon King, mayor of East Cleveland, seeking extraordinary writs to compel the removal of a proposed East Cleveland city-charter amendment from the November 7, 2023 general election ballot and to prevent the December 5, 2023 special mayoral-recall election, holding that King was not entitled to relief.On August 9, 2023, the East Cleveland City Council passed resolution submitting to city electors a proposed revision to the city charter that would change the mayoral election from a partisan to a nonpartisan contest. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and its individual members (collectively, the board) voted unanimously to approve the proposed city-charter amendment for placement on the November 7 ballot as Issue 48. A city resident later submitted a petition for King's recall as mayor, and the board scheduled a December 5, 2023 special election. King submitted a written protest challenging the placement of Issue 48 on the general election ballot and placement of the mayoral-recall issue on the December 5 special-election ballot. The protest was dismissed. King subsequently filed this action seeking extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in dismissing King's protest. View "State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff John Frank sued Wyoming state and local officials in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending Wyoming's electioneering statute violated the First Amendment, facially and as applied. Frank, a Wyoming citizen, and alleging the statute unconstitutionally prevented him from handing out campaign literature and displaying bumper stickers on his car within the 300-foot buffer zone. Frank also claimed the statute was overbroad because it violated the First Amendment rights of third parties who could not display campaign signs on private property falling within the statutory buffer zones. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted each in part, striking down some parts of the electioneering statute and upholding the rest. Specifically, the district court held the ban on electioneering within 300 feet of polling places on election day was unconstitutional, as was the ban on bumper stickers within the election day and absentee period buffer zones. But the district court upheld the statute’s prohibition on electioneering within 100 feet of absentee polling places. It also concluded there was an insufficient factual basis to consider Plaintiff’s overbreadth claim. After its review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court upheld the electioneering statute against Frank’s First Amendment challenge to the size of, and conduct proscribed within, the 300-foot election-day buffer zone. The Court reversed and remanded on Frank’s constitutional challenge to the absentee buffer zone, including the electioneering conduct proscribed within that zone. Finally, the Court remanded for the district court to adjudicate in the first instance Frank’s facial overbreadth challenge. View "Frank, et al. v. Wyoming Secretary of State, et al." on Justia Law

Kari Lake and Mark Finchem (“Plaintiffs”), the Republican nominees for Governor and Secretary of State of Arizona, filed this action before the 2022 general election, contending that Arizona’s use of electronic tabulation systems violated the federal Constitution. The district court dismissed their operative first amended complaint for lack of Article III standing. Lake v. Hobbs. Plaintiffs’ candidacies failed at the polls, and their various attempts to overturn the election outcome in state court have to date been unavailing. On appeal, they no longer seek any relief concerning the 2022 election but instead seek to bar use of electronic tabulation systems in future Arizona elections.   The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that Plaintiffs’ “speculative allegations that voting machines may be hackable are insufficient to establish an injury in fact under Article III. The court explained that even assuming Plaintiffs could continue to claim standing as prospective voters in future elections, they had not alleged a particularized injury and therefore failed to establish the kind of injury Article III requires. None of Plaintiffs’ allegations supported a plausible inference that their individual votes in future elections will be adversely affected by the use of electronic tabulation, particularly given the robust safeguards in Arizona law, the use of paper ballots, and the post-tabulation retention of those ballots. The panel concluded that speculative allegations that voting machines may be hackable were insufficient to establish an injury, in fact, under Article III. View "KARI LAKE, ET AL V. ADRIAN FONTES, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal arising from a circuit court order denying Appellants' petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus relief seeking relief related to the Forrest City 2022 city council election, holding that the issue on appeal was moot.On the day of the election at issue, Appellants filed a pre-election challenge to the eligibility of Jim Bailey, Jr., who had entered the race for a position on the city council. The election took place, and Bailey won. The court ordered a stay on certifying the election results until it could rule on Appellants' challenge. The circuit court subsequently authorized Bailey to remain in office. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellants' appeal, holding that the question of Bailey's eligibility was moot, and none of the exceptions for mootness applied in this case. View "Humphrey v. Long" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the circuit court finding that the emergency clause contained within Act 237 of 2023 (the LEARNS Act) did not receive a separate roll-call vote as required under the Arkansas Constitution, rendering the clause procedurally invalid, holding that Arkansas General Assembly complied with Ark. Const. V, 1 when it enacted the LEARNS Act emergency clause.After the General Assembly passed the LEARNS Act the legislation was sent the Governor, who signed it into law. Appellees brought the underlying complaint seeking a declaration that the Act's emergency clause, under which certain provisions became effective on the date of the Governor's approval, was invalid. Upon remand, the circuit court declared the LEARNS Act emergency clause invalid because it did not receive a separate roll-call vote. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the emergency clause was passed in compliance with article 5, section 1. View "Ark. Dep't of Education v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Relator ordering Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and its individual members to remove a proposed East Cleveland city-charter amendment from the November 7, 2023 general election ballot and refrain from going forward with a special mayoral-recall election, holding that Relator was not entitled to the writ.Relator, the mayor of East Cleveland, sought a writ of prohibition ordering Respondents - the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and its individual members - to remove a proposed city-charter amendment from the November 2023 general election ballot and refrain from proceeding with a May 5, 2023 mayoral-recall election. Relator further sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction asking that the elections and the mayoral recall not go forward. The Supreme Court denied the writ and denied as moot Relator's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, holding that Relator was not entitled to the writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

In this expedited election case, the Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents to sustain a protest compelling Secretary of State Frank LaRose and the Logan County Board of Elections to sustain a protest and remove an initiative from the November 2023 general election ballot, holding that LaRose and the board abused its discretion and disregarded the law in overruling Relators' protest.Petitioners collected signatures for an initiative petition concerning a proposed ordinance regarding drag artists and drag shows. The part-petitions that were filed, however, differed from the circulated part-petitions. The board found that the petition contained a sufficient number of valid signatures. Relators filed a protest, but Secretary LaRose voted against the protest. Relators then filed this mandamus action seeking to compel Respondents to sustain their protest. The Supreme Court sustained the writ, holding that the petition as filed did not comply with Ohio Rev. Code 731.31 because each filed part-petition included a title that was not presented to the electors who signed it. View "State ex rel. Hildreth v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Union County Board of Elections to place a referendum on the November 7, 2023 general election ballot in this expedited election case, holding that the Union County Board of Elections and Secretary of State based their discretion and acted in clear disregard of the applicable law when they removed the referendum from the ballot.On the same day that the Marysville City Council passed an ordinance to annex 263.25 acres adjoining Marysville it passed an ordinance to rezone the territory from agricultural use to a planned-unit development. Relators circulated referendum petitions for the annexation ordinance, and the board certified the referendum to the ballot. Respondent filed an election protest to the referendum. The Secretary of State sustained the protest and excluded the referendum from the ballot. Relators then brought this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to place the referendum on the November 2023 general election ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that it was an abuse of discretion to remove the referendum from the ballot. View "State ex rel. Miller v. Union County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Since 1979, Tennessee has made it a crime for anyone other than election officials to distribute the state’s official form for applying to vote absentee. During much of this time, Tennessee kept close guard of this form to deter fraud. Election officials now make the form widely available online so that eligible voters may easily apply. According to the Plaintiffs, this change has rendered the ban on distributing the application form “outdated.” They want to distribute the form while encouraging absentee voting at their get-out-the-vote drives. They allege that the First Amendment gives them the right to do so and that, because they seek to distribute the form while expressing a political message, the ban is subject to strict scrutiny.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Tennessee’s ban prohibits an act--distributing a government form--that qualifies as conduct, not speech. While the First Amendment provides some protection to “expressive conduct,” strict scrutiny does not apply to Tennessee’s ban because it neutrally applies no matter the message that a person seeks to convey and because it burdens nobody’s ability to engage in actual speech. At most, the Supreme Court’s lenient First Amendment test for neutral laws that regulate conduct applies and the ban survives that nondemanding test, View "Lichtenstein v. Hargett" on Justia Law