Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Marcus Wallace sought to run as an independent candidate in the June 4, 2013, mayoral election in Edwards, Mississippi. The Edwards Municipal Election Commission declined to place his name on the ballot, questioning the validity of certain signatures on Wallace’s petition for candidacy. Following an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court and a granted writ of mandamus directing the Commission to conduct a hearing, the Commission again denied Wallace’s petition to be placed on the ballot. Because the Supreme Court agreed with the determination of the Special Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial District of Hinds County that the Commission improperly applied Mississippi Code Section 1-3-76 (Rev. 2005), and because the Court found Wallace’s name should have been placed on the mayoral ballot, the Court affirmed. View "Election Commission of the Town of Edwards v. Wallace" on Justia Law

In this case, a city clerk in a Faulkner Act municipality refused to accept for filing a petition for referendum on the ground that the petition did not have a sufficient number of qualifying signatures. Members of a Committee of Petitioners brought an action in lieu of prerogative writ to have the challenged ordinance put on the ballot. They also brought suit under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c). Ultimately, the trial court granted the Committee members the relief they sought, placing the ordinance before the voters and awarding them, as the prevailing party, attorney’s fees for the deprivation of a substantive right protected by the Civil Rights Act. The Appellate Division affirmed all but the trial court’s finding of a civil rights violation. The Appellate Division determined that the Committee members did not suffer a deprivation of a right because the court provided the ultimate remedy - the referendum. Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees was vacated. Upon review, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed that the city clerk violated the right of referendum guaranteed by the Faulkner Act. Furthermore, the Court held that the violation of that right deprived the Committee members a substantive right protected by the Civil Rights Act. The vindication of that right under the Civil Rights Act entitled the Committee members to an award of attorney’s fees. The Court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Appellate Division. View "Tumpson v. Farina" on Justia Law

In 2010, the City of Whitefish passed Resolution 10-46, which authorized the City to enter into an interlocal agreement with Flathead County concerning planning and zoning authority over a two-mile area surrounding the City. In 2011, voters in Whitehead passed a referendum repealing the Resolution. Plaintiffs, residents of the City and the County, filed the present lawsuit claiming that the citizens’ power of referendum and initiative did not extend to the Resolution. The district court agreed with Plaintiffs and granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs and the County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by not dismissing the suit as untimely based upon the doctrine of laches; and (2) did not err by determining that the Resolution was not subject to the right of voter initiative and referendum because the Resolution was an administrative act by the City. View "Phillips v. City of Whitefish" on Justia Law

Five voters owned homes in a borough and a home outside that borough. Two of the voters voted in the borough's 2010 election. All five voted in the borough's 2011 election. Although each voter was registered to vote, the borough's canvassing committee rejected the voters' ballots in each election on the ground that they were not borough residents. The voters appealed to the superior court and brought direct claims against the borough and a number of borough officials in their official and individual capacities. The court ruled that the voters were borough residents and legally qualified to vote in the 2010 and 2011 borough elections, and that the voters were to remain eligible to vote in future borough elections absent substantial changes in circumstances. The court denied the voters full reasonable attorney fees against the borough under AS 09.60.010(c), concluding that they did not bring constitutional claims, but awarded them partial attorney fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82. The borough appealed the residency determinations and the voters appealed the attorney fees awards. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decisions that the voters were borough residents and eligible to vote in the 2010 and 2011 borough elections, but vacated the order that the voters were automatically eligible to vote in future elections. The Court reversed the superior court's determination that the voters did not bring constitutional claims covered by AS 09.60.010(c), and remanded the case on the fee issue. View "Lake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v. Oberlatz" on Justia Law

VRLC is a non-profit corporation and VRLC-FIPE is a political committee formed under Vermont law. VRLC challenged three disclosure provisions of Vermont's election laws as unconstitutionally vague and violating freedom of speech. The court concluded that the Vermont statutory disclosure provisions concerning electioneering communications and mass media activities are constitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee due to vagueness nor the First Amendment's free speech guarantee; Vermont's "political committee" definition did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee because of vagueness nor violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee; and Vermont may impose contribution limits on VRLC-PC, an entity that makes contributions to candidates, and the statute's contribution limits were constitutionally applied to VRLC-FIPE, which claims to be an independent-expenditure-only PAC. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed actions of the Title Board in setting title and ballot title and submission clauses for initiative 2013-2014 #89. Proponents complained that the titles did not contain one subject or that the title was not clear. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Title Board. View "In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #89" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed actions of the Title Board in setting titles and ballot title and submission clauses for initiatives 2013-2014 90 and 93. Proponents complained that the titles did not contain one subject or fairly reflect the purpose of the proposed initiatives. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Title Board. View "In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90 and #93" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed actions of the Title Board in setting titles and ballot title and submission clauses for initiatives 2013-2014 85, 86 and 87. Proponents complained that the titles did not contain one subject or fairly reflect the purpose of the proposed initiatives. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Title Board. View "In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #85, #86, and #87" on Justia Law

After the Title Board set titles and submission clauses for Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #103, petitioners moved for a rehearing, claiming the initiative contained more than one subject and was impermissibly vague. One of the initiative's representatives was unable to attend the rehearing. The Secretary of State's office suggested that a designated representative withdraw and a substitute alternate attend the hearing. The Title Board allowed the substitution and proceeded to deny the petitioner's motion. On appeal, petitioners argued that the proposed initiative still contained too many subjects and was impermissibly vague. Furthermore, the argued the Title Board did not have authority to allow the substitute representative. The Supreme Court agreed that the Title Board's approval of the substitute was improper. Therefore, the Court reversed the Title Board's action and remanded the case back to the Board without decision on claims that the initiative addressed more than one subject or was vague. View "In re Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #103" on Justia Law

Proponents Mike Spaulding and Natalie Menten proposed Initiative 76 which sought to repeal and replace the existing manner of triggering and conducting a recall election under article XXI of the Colorado Constitution, and to institute a new constitutional right to recall state and local non-elected officers. The Title Board set a title and submission clause for the initiative. Registered elector Philip Hayes objected to the Board's action. The Board modified the title and submission clause in response to Hayes' objections, but otherwise denied his motion for rehearing. The proponents contended that the initiative, title and submission clause addressed a single subject and were in compliance with state law. The Supreme Court disagreed, and concluded the Title Board acted unconstitutionally in setting a title for the initiative. The Board's action was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #76" on Justia Law