Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's complaint seeking an injunction and declaratory relief to enjoin a student member on the Board of Education of Howard County from exercising any voting power and a declaration that the election process for the student member violates the Maryland Constitution, holding that there was no error.After relying on remote learning for schooling during the Covid-19 pandemic, at the end of 2020, the Board of Education of Howard County held votes on motions to resume in-person instruction. Each motion failed by a stalemate vote, with the student member causing the stalemate. After the Board decided to continue with remote learning Petitioners brought this action seeking an injunction and a declaration that the statute creating the student member on the Board is unconstitutional. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the provisions of section 3-701 of the Education Article concerning the student member position on the Board do not violate the Maryland Constitution. View "Spiegel v. Board of Education of Howard County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding brought upon Plaintiffs' 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 their document that was filed as an election contest complaint Plaintiffs asserted that the Hawai'i Republican Party should have been disqualified as an active party and requesting that the Hawai'i Republican Party name be barred from appearing on the 2022 general election ballot. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over their complaint or the relief they sought. View "Dicks v. State of Haw. Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the exemption from the referendum power for law "for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state government and state institutions," see Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, 1(3), apples to tax measures and that a revenue measure is exempt from referendum provided that it is for the support and maintenance of existing departments of the state government and state institutions.SB 1828 was signed by the Governor as a tax bill for the 2022 fiscal year and imposes a "flat" tax of 2.5 percent on taxable revenues but becomes effective only if the state General Fund revenues reach specific targets. Invest in Arizona (IIA) sought to prevent implementation of the flat tax by referring SB 1828 to the ballot in the November 2022 general election. Appellants filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Secretary of State from accepting or certifying any petition filed in support of a referendum of SB 1828, including IIA's petition. The trial court ruled that SB 1828 is referable and denied the preliminary injunction request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exemption from the referendum power for laws "for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state government and state institutions" applies to tax measures. View "Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals that reversed the order of the trial court declaring void two challenged amendments to the North Carolina Constitution, holding that the trial court should have considered whether invalidating both the Voter ID Amendment and the Tax Cap Amendment was necessary "upon balances the equities" of the situation.In the week of the final regular legislative session preceding the 2018 general election a General Assembly composed of legislators elected from districts that the United States Supreme Court determined to have resulted from unconstitutional racial gerrymandering enacted legislation presenting constitutional amendments that were ultimately ratified by a majority of voters. At issue were Session Law 2018-119 (the Tax Cap Amendment) and Session Law 2018-128 (the Voter ID Amendment). The Supreme Court held (1) N.C. Const. Art, I, 2-3 imposes limits on the authority of legislators electors due to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering to alter the constitution; but (2) the trial court's order invalidating the two challenged amendments swept too broadly, such that remand was required. View "N.C. NAACP v. Moore" on Justia Law

Adrian Perkins, the then-current mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, sought reelection to that office. On July 22, 2022, Perkins signed and filed a notice of candidacy form, as required by La. R.S. 18:461 to become a candidate in a primary election. The requirements for the notice of candidacy set forth in La. R.S. 18:463 include a requirement that the candidate certify nine items. It was undisputed Perkins signed the form certifying all required statements and that his certification as to Item 8 on the notice of candidacy form, was incorrect. Perkins has two residences–Stratmore Circle and Marshall Street– both within the city of Shreveport. Although Perkins was registered to vote at the Stratmore Circle address at the time of his qualification, it was undisputed he maintained a homestead exemption at the Marshall Street residence. The two residences were in different voting precincts. Francis Deal, a qualified elector, filed a “Petition in Objection to Candidacy” asserting Perkins’ false certification on the notice of candidacy form disqualified him from being a candidate for mayor pursuant to La. R.S. 18:492. Deal also asserted that pursuant to La. R.S. 18:101(B), Perkins was required to be registered to vote in the precinct where he claimed his homestead exemption, and his failure to do so caused him to be an unqualified elector and candidate. After considering the evidence, the district court disqualified Perkins as a candidate in the primary election for the office of the Mayor of the city of Shreveport. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that only those false certifications specifically listed in La. R.S. 18:492(A)(5) through (7) constituted grounds for objecting to a candidate. Because the certification at issue in this case was not specifically listed in La. R.S. 18:492, it could not serve as a basis to disqualify the candidate here. View "Deal v. Perkins et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by F. Patrick Cunnane and Mary E. Cunnane to compel Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose to certify their names to the ballot, holding that the Cunnanes failed to establish that they were entitled to the writ.The Cunnanes filed a joint nominating petition to appear on Ohio's general election ballot in November 2022 as independent candidates for the offices of governor and lieutenant governor. Secretary of State Frank LaRose rejected their nominating petition on the grounds that, in his view, they could not claim to be unaffiliated from a political party when they each cast a partisan ballot in the May 2022 primary election. The Cunnanes subsequently brought this mandamus action. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the Cunnanes did not meet their burden of proving that Secretary LaRose abused his discretion when he declined to certify them as independent candidates. View "State ex rel. Cunnane v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court ruling in favor of Plaintiffs on cross-motions for summary judgment and enjoining the Montana Secretary of State from placing House Bill (HB) 325 on Montana's 2022 general election ballot, holding that the referendum proposal violates the Montana Constitution.In approved, HB 325 will establish seven Supreme Court districts in Montana and requires that Supreme Court justices be elected district by district, rather than statewide. Plaintiffs brought this challenge to the constitutionality of the measure. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that the question of the constitutionality of the referendum proposed by HB 325 is ripe for judicial resolution; and (2) the district court did not err in enjoining the Secretary from placing HB 325 on the ballot in the 2022 general election. View "McDonald v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court ruling in favor of Plaintiffs on cross-motions for summary judgment and enjoining the Montana Secretary of State from placing House Bill (HB) 325 on Montana's 2022 general election ballot, holding that the referendum proposal violates the Montana Constitution.If approved, HB 325 will establish seven Supreme Court districts in Montana and requires that Supreme Court justices be elected district by district, rather than statewide. Plaintiffs brought this challenge to the constitutionality of the measure. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that the question of the constitutionality of the referendum proposed by HB 325 is ripe for judicial resolution; and (2) the district court did not err in enjoining the Secretary from placing HB 325 on the ballot in the 2022 general election. View "McDonald v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Brian Ames, a candidate for the Republican Party State Central Committee for Senate District 28 in the August 2022 primary election, holding that Ames was not entitled to the writ.Ames brought this expedited election matter asking for a writ of mandamus requiring Secretary of State Frank LaRose to direct three count boards of elections to "challenge" electors who requested a ballot for a party other than the other for which the elector voted in the May 2022 primary election. Ames further requested that ballots cast in the August primary be "segregated according to the party for which the elector voted in May" and that ballots cast for a different party not be counted. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) the writ was moot as to Secretary LaRose; and (2) as to the boards of elections, the writ is denied because Ames was not entitled to the relief he sought. View "State ex rel. Ames v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this action challenging the conduct of the Lake County Election Board, holding that the Election Board did not violate Joseph Hero's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.Hero, a registered republican for forty years, opposed the decision of his town council to exercise its eminent-domain authority to seize the property of predominantly lower-income homeowners. Hero backed two independent candidates for town council running against two incumbent, pro-development candidates. Thereafter, the Indiana Republican Party banned Hero from the Republican Party for ten years. In 2019, Hero attempted to appear as a Republican candidate in the 2019 election, but the Election Board concluded that Hero could not run. Hero subsequently filed a complaint arguing that the Election Board violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Hero had standing to sue; and (2) the Election Board did not violate Hero's constitutional rights. View "Hero v. Lake County Election Bd." on Justia Law