Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellants' claims in this case raising questions regarding a challenge to a constitutional ballot initiative, holding that Appellants lacked standing to bring their claims.In 2018, Kentucky voters ratified the constitutional amendment known as Marsy's Law, but the Supreme Court invalidated the amendment on procedural grounds. In 2020, after the General Assembly again proposed the Marsy's Law constitutional amendment, Appellants brought a complaint seeing declaratory and injunctive relief either prohibiting Marsy's Law from appearing on the ballot or preventing tabulation of votes on ratification of the amendment. The trial court ruled against Plaintiffs on their procedural claims but concluded that Appellants' facial challenges to Marsy's Law were not ripe. After the parties appealed, Kentucky voters ratified that Marsy's Law constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal, holding that Appellants lacked constitutional standing to bring their claims because they failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact on the record. View "Ward v. Westerfield" on Justia Law

This action stemmed from the San Bernardino County registrar of voters (ROV) initially miscalculating the number of signatures needed in support of plaintiffs and real parties in interest’s (RPI) initiative petition to repeal a special tax associated with a fire protection zone. The ROV told RPI the incorrect number, resulting in RPI incurring unnecessary costs in obtaining far more signatures than were required. Defendants and Petitioners County of San Bernadino and its ROV, Bob Page, (collectively, the County) petitioned for a writ of mandate to direct the respondent trial court to vacate its order overruling the County’s demurrer and to enter an order sustaining the without leave to amend. The County contended that, when RPI requested the County to inform it of the number of signatures required for its initiative petition, the County did not owe RPI any statutory or constitutional duty to provide the information when requested. The County further argues it was immune from liability for communicating to RPI the incorrect number under Government Code sections 818.8 and 822.2. The Court of Appeal agreed that under Government Code sections 815 and 815.6, the County was not subject to liability because there was no breach of any statutory or constitutional duty. "[E]ven if the County owed RPI such a duty, the County was immune from liability under Government Code sections 818.8 and 822.2." The Court therefore concluded the trial court erred in overruling the County’s demurrer. View "County of San Bernardino v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals declared void the legislature's congressional and state senate maps, holding that judicial oversight is required to facilitate the expeditious creation of constitutionally-conforming maps for use in the 2022 election and to safeguard New Yorkers' constitutionally-protected right to a fair election.In 2022, the first redistricting cycle to follow the adoption of 2014 amendments, a stalemate within the Independent Redistricting Commission resulted in a breakdown in the process for submission of electoral maps to the legislature. The legislature responded by creating and enacting maps that failed to follow the 2014 constitutional reforms. Petitioners brought this action alleging that the process by which the 2022 maps were enacted was constitutionally defective. Supreme Court agreed and declared the maps void under the State Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding (1) the legislature's failure to follow the prescribed constitutional procedure required invalidation of the congressional and state senate maps; and (2) there was record support for the determination that the district lines for congressional races were drawn with an unconstitutional partisan intent. View "Harkenrider v. Hochul" on Justia Law

The November 2020 election included three seats on the five-member East Palo Alto City Council. Seven candidates ran. Lopez came in third, with Lincoln fourth. Lincoln filed a 14-page statement of contest, alleging Lopez violated Elections Code section 18370, by “ electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place”; and section 18522, “by offering valuable consideration to voters voting” by giving away free tacos (allowing a taco truck to block a handicap parking space). City clerk Solorzano filed an answer. Eleven witnesses testified, including Lincoln and Lopez; two San Mateo County Officials; several current and former City Council members; a person present at the polling site to conduct COVID-19 testing; a Lincoln supporter; and the owner of the taco truck.The court’s 23-page statement of decision concluded that Lincoln did not prove by clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence that Lopez committed an offense against the elective franchise. The court of appeal affirmed. “Lincoln’s argument is based on a version of the record that is contrary to all principles of appellate review—not to mention that it fails to address the significance of the trial court’s conclusions as to his two primary claims.” The court awarded Lopez costs on appeal. View "Lincoln v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the legal sufficiency of Oklahoma State Question No. 818, Initiative Petition No. 432. State Question 818, Petition No. 432 sought to create a new article to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article 31, which would: (1) replace the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority with a new state agency--the "Oklahoma State Cannabis Commission" and define its duties; and (2) expand the statutory framework regarding regulation and taxation of medical marijuana. Petitioner Paul Tay, alleged State Question No. 818, Petition No. 432 was unconstitutional because: (1) it was preempted by federal law; (2) signatures gathered on and elections held on tribal land would be invalid; and (3) its gist was insufficient. After review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held Petitioner failed to establish clear or manifest facial unconstitutionality. State Question No. 818, Initiative Petition No. 432 was therefore legally sufficient for submission to Oklahomans for voting. View "Tay v. Green" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the legal sufficiency of Oklahoma State Question No. 818, Initiative Petition No. 432. State Question 818, Petition No. 432 sought to create a new article to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article 31, which would: (1) replace the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority with a new state agency--the "Oklahoma State Cannabis Commission" and define its duties; and (2) expand the statutory framework regarding regulation and taxation of medical marijuana. Petitioner Paul Tay, alleged State Question No. 818, Petition No. 432 was unconstitutional because: (1) it was preempted by federal law; (2) signatures gathered on and elections held on tribal land would be invalid; and (3) its gist was insufficient. After review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held Petitioner failed to establish clear or manifest facial unconstitutionality. State Question No. 818, Initiative Petition No. 432 was therefore legally sufficient for submission to Oklahomans for voting. View "Tay v. Green" on Justia Law

Appellants, Campaign Legal Center and Catherine Hinckley Kelley filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”). Appellants contended that the Commission’s decision to dismiss their complaint alleging violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“Act” or “FECA”) during the 2016 presidential election cycle by the political committee Correct the Record (“CTR”) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee, Hillary for America, was contrary to law. CTR and Hillary for America (together, “Intervenors”) intervened as defendants in this suit.The court held that Appellants have standing to sue, reasoning that, “a denial of access to information qualifies as an injury in fact where a statute (on the claimants’ reading) requires that the information be publicly disclosed and there is no reason to doubt their claim that the information would help them.” The court found that the information Appellants seek is not currently known and it cannot be gleaned from the disclosures that have already been made by CTR and Hillary for America. The court stated there is no doubt that disaggregation of the existing disclosures would reveal the amounts of any coordinated contributions. It is also clear that the amounts that CTR contributed to the Clinton campaign constitute factual information that is subject to disclosure under the statute.Appellants have demonstrated a quintessential informational injury directly related to their “interest in knowing how much money a candidate spent in an election.” Thus, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings. View "Campaign Legal Center v. FEC" on Justia Law

In this original action filed by Petitioners to remedy malapportionment in Wisconsin's state legislative and congressional districts the Supreme Court held that the maps proposed by the Wisconsin Legislature were race neutral.On March 3, 2022, the Supreme Court selected legislative and congressional maps drawn by Governor Tony Evers. On certiorari review, the United States Supreme Court summarily reversed, concluding that racial motivations drove the Governor's selection of district lines. On remand, the Supreme Court held (1) the maps proposed by the Governor, Senator Janet Bewley, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, and Citizen Mathematicians and Scientists were racially motivated and failed strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause; and (2) this Court adopts the state senate and assembly maps proposed by the State Legislature. View "Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

In this case involving Democrat Abby Finkenauer's candidacy for U.S. Senate the Supreme Court sustained the State Objections Panel's decision to reject objections as to the signatures of three electors who had provided either no date or a clearly incorrect date, holding that there was no error.If the objectors' position as to the signatures in this case had been sustained, Finkenauer would have failed to meet the requirements to be placed on the June 7, 2022 Democratic primary ballot. The Panel allowed Finkenauer's nomination petition. The district court reversed, holding that the three undated or improperly dated signatures should not have been counted. At issue was Iowa Code 43.15(2), which makes the date a legal requirement when an eligible elector signs a nomination petition, and recent legislation passed last year, Iowa Code 43.24(2)(a), which did not include missing or incorrect dates as one of the grounds for sustaining an objection to a petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the recent legislation prevailed. View "Schmett v. State Objections Panel" on Justia Law

For the fourth time this issue was before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the third-revised General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission violates the standards of Ohio Const. art. XI, 6(A) and 6(B) and that a new plan must be adopted in conformity with the Ohio Constitution.Between September 2021 and February 2022 the Commission adopted three General Assembly-district plans, each of which the Supreme Court invalidated because they did not comply with Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The Commission subsequently adopted its fourth plan - the third-revised plan. The Supreme Court ordered the Commission to be reconstituted and to adopt a new plan in conformity with the Ohio Constitution, holding that the third-revised plan violates Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Committee" on Justia Law