Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Christopher Nardi submitted an APRA request to the Indiana Election Division for documents related to Indiana’s voter-registration system. He requested three specific documents: the latest standard operating procedures, build notes, and the latest contract with third-party vendors. The Division denied the requests, citing security concerns, but directed Nardi to an online portal for the contract, which he accessed but failed to save. Nardi then filed a complaint with Indiana’s Public Access Counselor (PAC), which recommended partial disclosure. The Division refused, leading Nardi to file a lawsuit in Marion Superior Court.The Marion Superior Court conducted an in-camera review and ordered the Division to provide a redacted version of the contract but denied the other requests. Nardi petitioned for attorney’s fees, claiming he substantially prevailed. The trial court awarded him one-third of the requested fees, reasoning he prevailed on one of three requests. Both parties appealed. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the partial summary judgment but reversed the fee award, concluding Nardi did not substantially prevail.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case, holding that Nardi substantially prevailed by obtaining a wrongfully withheld public record. The Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this determination. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s mechanical reduction of attorney’s fees to one-third. The case was remanded for the trial court to recalculate the fees, considering the time spent on the successful claim and whether the time spent on unsuccessful claims was indivisible from the successful claim. The Indiana Supreme Court emphasized that APRA should be liberally construed to promote transparency and accountability in government. View "Nardi v. King" on Justia Law

In 2023, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County approved a new map for electing county commissioners without complying with Colorado's redistricting statutes, arguing that as a home rule county, it was exempt from these requirements. Weld County residents, along with the League of Women Voters of Greeley and the Latino Coalition of Weld County, sued the Board, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the use of the new map.The Weld County District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and enjoining the Board from using the new map. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing, the redistricting statutes applied to Weld County, and the Board had violated these statutes. The Board appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the plaintiffs petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for certiorari review, which was granted.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the redistricting statutes provide a private right of action and that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The court further held that home rule counties must comply with the redistricting statutes, as these statutes impose mandatory functions rather than structural requirements. The court reversed the district court's allowance for the Board to use the 2015 map and ordered the Board to draw and approve a new map in compliance with the redistricting statutes in time for the 2026 county commissioner election. View "League of Women Voters of Greeley v. The Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Weld" on Justia Law

Debbie Mayfield, a former member of the Florida House of Representatives and Florida Senate, sought to run in a special election for Senate District 19 after the incumbent announced his resignation. Mayfield submitted the necessary paperwork to qualify for the ballot, but the Secretary of State and Director of the Division of Elections refused to place her on the ballot, citing a constitutional provision on term limits.The Circuit Court did not review the case. Mayfield directly petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for writs of mandamus and quo warranto, arguing that the Secretary misinterpreted his authority and failed to fulfill his statutory duty.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and granted Mayfield's petition for mandamus relief. The court held that Mayfield had a clear legal right to appear on the ballot, as she had met all statutory requirements for qualification. The court found that the Secretary's role in reviewing candidate qualifications is ministerial and does not include the authority to assess a candidate's constitutional eligibility. The court also rejected the Secretary's interpretation of the term-limits provision, concluding that Mayfield's break in service meant she had not served more than eight consecutive years in the Senate. The court ordered the Secretary to place Mayfield on the ballot by a specified deadline and denied the petition for quo warranto as moot. View "Mayfield v. Secretary, Florida Department of State" on Justia Law

The Wisconsin Voter Alliance filed identical petitions for writ of mandamus against the registers in probate for 13 circuit courts in Wisconsin, seeking access to Notice of Voting Eligibility (NVE) forms under Wisconsin’s public records law. These forms document when a court finds an individual incompetent to vote. The Alliance argued that they needed this information to ensure the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) was updating voter records accurately.The Walworth County Circuit Court dismissed the Alliance’s petition, agreeing with the register in probate, Kristina Secord, that the NVE forms were exempt from disclosure under Wisconsin Statute § 54.75. The Alliance appealed to the Court of Appeals, District II. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals, District IV, had already ruled in a similar case (Reynolds) that NVE forms were exempt from disclosure under the same statute, affirming the Juneau County Circuit Court’s dismissal of the Alliance’s petition.In the current case, the Court of Appeals, District II, issued a split opinion. The majority held that the Alliance was entitled to the NVE forms, possibly with redactions, and reversed the circuit court’s dismissal. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that District II violated the precedent set by Cook v. Cook, which mandates that the Court of Appeals must follow prior published opinions unless overruled by the Supreme Court.The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that District II was bound by the Reynolds decision and should have either certified the appeal to the Supreme Court or adhered to the prior opinion while expressing its disagreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, District II, and remanded the case with instructions to follow the precedent established in Reynolds. View "Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson were unable to register to vote in Virginia due to felony convictions. King was convicted of felony drug possession in 2018, and Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies, including drug possession, in 2021. Virginia's constitution disenfranchises individuals convicted of felonies unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. King and Johnson argued that this disenfranchisement violated the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal statute from 1870, which they claimed restricted Virginia from amending its constitution to disenfranchise individuals for crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed three of the four counts in the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed one count based on the Virginia Readmission Act to proceed. The defendants, including various state election officials and the Governor of Virginia, moved to dismiss the complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, which the district court rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs' claim met the requirements of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits for prospective relief against state officials to prevent ongoing violations of federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow the claim to proceed against most defendants but reversed the decision regarding the Governor of Virginia and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, finding that they lacked enforcement responsibility for the challenged state action. The court concluded that the Governor and Secretary must be dismissed from the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The district court's order was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "King v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of relators seeking to place a proposed constitutional amendment titled "Ohio Voters Bill of Rights" before Ohio voters. The relators submitted the text and a summary of their proposed amendment to the Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, for certification. The Attorney General refused to certify the summary, arguing that the title "Ohio Voters Bill of Rights" was not a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment.Previously, the relators had submitted their petition with a different title, "Secure and Fair Elections," which the Attorney General also rejected for similar reasons. The relators revised their petition and resubmitted it with the new title, but the Attorney General again refused to certify it, focusing solely on the title's perceived inaccuracy.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court determined that the Attorney General's authority under R.C. 3519.01(A) is limited to examining the summary of a proposed constitutional amendment, not its title. The court found that the Attorney General exceeded his statutory authority by rejecting the petition based on the title. The court noted that the statutory scheme differentiates between a "summary" and a "title," and the Attorney General's duty is to review only the summary.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a limited writ of mandamus, ordering the Attorney General to examine the summary of the relators' proposed amendment within ten days, determine whether it is a fair and truthful statement, and, if so, certify and forward the petition to the Ohio Ballot Board. The court emphasized that the Attorney General must perform his statutory duty without considering the title of the proposed amendment. View "State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Bill Paschall and Arkansans for Patient Access (APA), sought a declaration from the court that the ballot title for the proposed "Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2024" was sufficient and requested that votes for the amendment be counted in the November 5, 2024, general election. The proposed amendment aimed to expand access to medical marijuana and included provisions for legalizing marijuana possession for all purposes if federal law changes. The Secretary of State, John Thurston, and intervenors, Jim Bell and Protect Arkansas Kids (PAK), opposed the petition, arguing that the proposal was insufficient due to misleading language and failure to meet signature requirements.The Secretary of State rejected APA's petition on the grounds that APA did not meet the 90,704 minimum-signature requirement, as affidavits were signed by individuals from Nationwide Ballot Initiative (NBA) rather than APA. PAK argued that the popular name and ballot title were misleading, as they did not inform voters about the amendment's broader implications, including the legalization of recreational marijuana and changes to the Arkansas Constitution unrelated to medical marijuana.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and found that the Secretary of State erred in rejecting the petition based on the signature requirement, as APA's delegation to NBA was permissible under Arkansas law. However, the court agreed with PAK that the popular name and ballot title were misleading. The court held that the proposed amendment's popular name suggested it was limited to medical marijuana, while it also sought to legalize recreational marijuana and amend unrelated constitutional provisions. The ballot title failed to adequately inform voters about these significant changes.The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied the petitioners' request, granted the intervenors' request for relief, and enjoined the Secretary of State from canvassing or certifying any ballots cast for the proposed amendment in the November 5, 2024, general election. View "PASCHALL V. THURSTON" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellants, members of the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners, appealed a decision by the Crittenden County Circuit Court. The appellees, Shirley Brown and Lavonda Taylor, filed a petition seeking to compel the Board to conduct early voting at specific locations for the 2024 General Election. The Board had failed to unanimously approve an early voting site in West Memphis, leading the County Clerk, Paula Brown, to designate the Seventh Street Church of Christ as an early voting site. The appellees also sought to maintain the First Baptist Church as an early voting site, as it had been used in the 2022 General Election.The Crittenden County Circuit Court partially granted the appellees' petition, ordering the Board to conduct early voting at the Church of Christ but denied the request to include the First Baptist Church. The court found that the County Clerk had the authority under Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-418(a)(1)(A) to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it ruled that the statute requiring polling sites to remain the same as the previous general election did not apply to early voting sites.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision with modifications. The Supreme Court agreed that the County Clerk had the authority to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it modified the writ of mandamus to clarify that the Board must only comply with its statutory duties regarding early voting conducted by the County Clerk. On cross-appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the First Baptist Church must remain an early voting site for the 2024 General Election, as the Board had not voted to change it from the 2022 General Election. View "Barton v. Brown" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition filed by Jennifer McGill and Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC (CNE) seeking to invalidate a proposed constitutional amendment concerning the Pope County casino license. The petitioners argued that the Arkansas Secretary of State, John Thurston, improperly certified the proposed amendment. They claimed that the number of valid signatures was insufficient and that the popular name and ballot title were misleading. Local Voters in Charge (LVC) and Jim Knight intervened in the case, supporting the proposed amendment.Previously, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted expedited consideration of the petition and allowed the intervention. The court bifurcated the proceedings into two counts: the sufficiency of the signatures and the sufficiency of the popular name and ballot title. A Special Master was appointed to resolve factual disputes regarding the signatures, which were addressed in a separate opinion. This opinion focuses on the challenges to the popular name and ballot title.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the popular name and ballot title certified by the Attorney General. The court held that the popular name and ballot title were sufficient and not misleading. The court found that the ballot title adequately informed voters that any existing casino license in Pope County would be revoked if the amendment passed. The court also rejected arguments that the popular name and ballot title failed to disclose conflicts with federal law or that they misled voters about the amendment's impact on future constitutional amendments.Ultimately, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied the petition, allowing the proposed amendment to remain on the ballot for the November 5, 2024, general election. The court issued its mandate immediately. View "MCGILL V. THURSTON" on Justia Law

This case involves five initiatives submitted to the Washington State legislature in 2024. The Secretary of State reviewed the signatures on the petitions for these initiatives and determined that there were enough valid signatures to certify them. The initiatives included measures on parental rights in education, repealing the state’s capital gains tax, forbidding state and local income taxes, prohibiting carbon tax credit trading, and making participation in the state’s long-term care insurance program optional. Defend Washington, along with Susan Young and Sharon Chen, challenged the adequacy of the Secretary’s review, arguing that it did not ensure the signers were legal voters.The trial court found that the Secretary’s review was adequate and dismissed the challenge. The court ruled that the Secretary’s use of statistical sampling techniques to verify signatures was consistent with state regulations and that checking signers’ addresses was not required. The Secretary had already submitted the initiatives to the legislature, which passed two of them and left the remaining three to be decided by voters in the upcoming general election.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the Secretary’s procedure of validating signatures by matching them with voter rolls did not violate RCW 29A.72.230, which requires verification of legal voters’ names on the petition. The court found no statutory requirement to verify addresses and concluded that the Secretary’s actions were consistent with the law. The court also noted that any further requirements for signature verification procedures would need to be established by the legislature or the Secretary through rulemaking. The superior court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Defend Washington v. Hobbs" on Justia Law