Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

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

Louisiana’s Attorney General filed a request for mandamus relief seeking to vacate the district court’s hearing scheduled to begin on October 3 and require the district court to promptly convene trial on the merits of this congressional redistricting case.   The Fifth Circuit granted in part and ordered the district court to vacate the October Hearing. The court explained that redistricting based on section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. Section 10301, is complex, historically evolving, and sometimes undertaken with looming electoral deadlines. The court explained that the district court did not follow the law of the Supreme Court or the Fifth Circuit court. Its action in rushing redistricting via a court-ordered map is a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no alternative means of appeal. Issuance of the writ is justified “under the circumstances” in light of multiple precedents contradicting the district court’s procedure here. The court held that the state has no other means of relief and is not seeking to use mandamus as a substitute for appeal. Further, the court noted that if this were ordinary litigation, the court would be most unlikely to intervene in a remedial proceeding for a preliminary injunction. Redistricting litigation, however, is not ordinary litigation. The court held that the district court here forsook its duty and placed the state at an intolerable disadvantage legally and tactically. View "In Re: Jeff Landry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Attorney General rejecting a constitutional initiative proposed for the 2024 ballot (B12), of which Petitioner was a proponent, holding that the Attorney General correctly determined that the new facial content proposed by B12 violated the separate-vote requirement in Mont. Const. art. XIV, 11.The Attorney General concluded that B12, which would amend Mont. Const. art. VIII, 3, was legally insufficient due to a violation of the separate-vote requirement and ambiguity in the text of the initiative. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and enjoined the Secretary of State from approving petitions for circulation to the electorate for signatures or otherwise submitting the measure for approval by voters, holding that the separate-vote issue was dispositive and that the Attorney General properly concluded that B12 violated the constitutional separate-vote requirement. View "Monforton v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action, holding that Ind. Code 3-9-2-3 to -6 prohibits or otherwise limits corporate contributions to political action committees (PACs) or other entities that engage in independent campaign-related expenditures.Plaintiffs filed suit against several state officials responsible for enforcing Indiana's election laws, arguing that Ind. Code 3-9-2-4 and 3-9-2-5 were unconstitutional as applied. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing, concluding that Plaintiffs had not suffered an injury. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether sections 3-9-2-3 to -6 prohibit corporate contributions to Super PACs like the fund at issue. The Court of Appeals answered by holding that sections 3-9-2-3 to -6 prohibit corporate contributions to PACs earmarked for independent campaign-related expenditures. View "Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund v. Morales" on Justia Law