Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a limited writ of mandamus ordering the City of Twinburg, City Clerk of Council Shannon Collins, and Law Director Matt Vazzana (collectively, the City) to transmit a referendum petition to the Summit County Board of Elections, holding that Collins had a ministerial duty to transmit the petition to the Board.At issue was Resolution No. 57-2022, a resolution to confirm the Twinsburg Planning Commission's approval of a final site plan for a proposed development. Clark and three other petitioners filed a referendum petition seeking to place the resolution on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot. After she was advised that the resolution was not subject to referendum, Lynn Clark brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the City to transmit the referendum petition to the Board. The Supreme Court granted a limited writ, holding that it was not necessary to address whether Resolution No. 57-2022 was subject to referendum because Clark established a right to the requested relief, and Collins had a duty to provide it. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Twinsburg" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' exceptions to the special magistrate's recommendation that their challenges to the most recent districting plan adopted by the General Assembly be rejected, holding that Petitioners' evidence fell short of the proof needed to establish the unconstitutionality of a redistricting plan.Early in 2022, the General Assembly adopted a new plan for State legislative districts. After four separate petitions were filed challenging the validity of that plan, a special magistrate enlisted by the Court conducted hearing and recommended that the challenges be rejected. The Court of Appeals denied the petitions, holding that Petitioners did not rebut the presumption of validity applied the legislative redistricting. View "In re 2022 Legislative Districting" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court that the Senate disclose all communications concerning an audit to American Oversight, holding that communications concerning legislative activities need not relate to proposed or pending legislation nor require an affirmative showing of indirect impairment of legislative deliberations to qualify for legislative privilege.At issue in this case was the scope and application of legislative privilege pursuant to the "Gravel/Fields framework" under the Arizona Constitution and common law. In 2020, Senate members contracted to conduct an audit of ballots cast in Maricopa County. American Oversight, a nonprofit organization, filed a complaint under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 39-121 to compel disclosure of the documents. The trial court rejected the Senate's immunity claim and ordered it to disclose the documents. When the Senate submitted a privilege log listing several withheld and redacted communications along with the requested documents American Oversight moved to compel the Senate to produce the withheld records. The trial court rejected the Senate's legislative privilege claim and granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Gravel/Fields framework requires that the Senate only disclose communications concerning administrative, political, or other non-legislative matters. View "Fann v. Honorable Kemp" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, an individual and a registered Nebraska ballot campaign committee, challenged as contrary to the Equal Protection Clause a provision in the Nebraska constitution that establishes a signature requirement for ballot initiatives. The district court entered a preliminary injunction barring the Nebraska Secretary of State from enforcing the provision. The Secretary appealed.   The Eighth Circuit reversed explaining that because the signature distribution requirement “does not draw a suspect classification or restrict a fundamental right,” Plaintiffs must show that it cannot survive even rational-basis scrutiny. The court explained that Plaintiffs have not shown even a “fair chance” of carrying this burden. The Secretary identifies multiple legitimate government interests served by the signature distribution requirement.  A lawmaker could rationally conclude that the signature distribution requirement furthers this interest by weeding out initiatives with a small but concentrated support base.   The court explained that it need not decide here whether to extend this principle to requests for injunctions against the enforcement of state constitutional provisions because the balance of the remaining preliminary injunction factors weighs in the Secretary’s favor anyway. Thus, on balance, the preliminary-injunction factors clearly weigh in the Secretary’s favor. The district court abused its discretion by granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction View "Crista Eggers v. Robert Evnen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court entered judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Commonwealth on all claims in Plaintiffs' complaint raising facial constitutional challenges to various aspects of the "Act fostering voter opportunities, trust, equity and security" (VOTES Act), including claims that universal early voting provisions were facially unconstitutional, and denied Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, holding that there was no merit to Plaintiffs' claims.The VOTES Act, which was passed by the legislature on June 16, 2022 and approved by the Governor six days later, provided that any qualified voter in Massachusetts can vote early, in person or by mail, in primaries and biennial State elections. Plaintiffs, all associated with the Massachusetts Republican Party, brought this action challenging the VOTES Act, specifically the Act's requirement that the Secretary mail applications for early voting ballots to all registered voters by July 23, 2022. The court entered judgment for the Secretary on all claims, arguing that Plaintiffs' claim that the universal early voting provisions were facially unconstitutional was without merit and that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their remaining claims. View "Lyons v. Secretary of Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' election contest complaint seeking nullification of the 2022 primary election results, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Plaintiffs Gary Cordery and a group of thirty registered voters brought this election contest complaint alleging inconsistencies, errors and mistakes in the voting process during the 2022 Primary Election. As relief, Plaintiffs requested nullification of the 2022 primary election results and directions that all qualified candidates advance to the General Election. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the remedies sought by Plaintiffs were not statutorily authorized, and therefore, Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim. View "Cordery v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants in this election contest brought by Plaintiff Richard Kim, holding that Josh Green received the highest number of votes and that his name shall be placed on the ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for the Office of Governor in the 2022 General Election.Plaintiff, one of seven Democratic Party candidates for the Office of Governor in the 2022 General Election, brought this complaint asserting that compromised vote counting occurred and that he should have been declared the winner of the primary election race held on August 13, 2022. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact related to Plaintiff's election contest. View "Kim v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding that the Supreme Court construed as an election complaint, holding that this Court did not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff the relief he sought.Plaintiff, one of the two Primary Election Republican Party candidates in the Senate District 24 race, brought this action requesting that an order be issued halting the certification of the 2022 Primary Election so that a manual recount could be conducted and asserting, among other things, a lack of resolution on certain election integrity inquiries. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the State of Hawai'i Office of Elections, holding that this Court lacked the authority under Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b) to grant Plaintiff the relief he sought. View "Lam v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding brought upon Plaintiff's submission of a document entitled "Election Complaint; Motion for Preliminary Injunction Rule 65 HRCP," which was filed as an election contest complaint, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.In the submitted document, Plaintiff Daniel B. Decker IV argued that Defendant, the State of Hawai'i Office of Elections, failed properly to apply the qualification process upon the Hawaii Republican Party for the year 2022 primary election. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Decker v. Hawai'i Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied an emergency mandamus action sought by Republican Party candidates in the November 2022 general election to remove their Libertarian Party opponents for failure to pay a statutory filing fee, holding that the petition was untimely.The Supreme Court denied the Republican's petition asserting that the Texas Election Code requires exclusion of the Libertarian candidates from the ballot without resolving he merits of the parties' dispute because the petition did not comport with recent instruction that "invoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch." The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the petition did not comport with recent instruction that "invoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch." View "In re Self" on Justia Law