Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Patricia Working, Rick Erdemir, and Floyd McGinnis appealed a circuit court judgment that held that the Jefferson County Election Commission ("the JCEC"), Probate Judge Alan King, Circuit Clerk Anne-Marie Adams, and Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale were immune from liability as to the plaintiffs' attorney fees. In "Working I," the Supreme Court held that a February special election was invalid on state-law grounds, and that the Governor's appointment of George Bowman to fill a vacancy on the Election Commission was lawful. On remand to the circuit court, as the "prevailing parties," plaintiffs moved for attorney fees. The trial court denied their motion, and plaintiffs appealed. In "Working II," the Supreme Court addressed plaintiffs' that the trial court erred in denying their motion for mediation, and vacated the trial court's order denying the motion for an award of attorney fees and remanded the case. On remand, the trial court concluded that the JCEC defendants had not waived their immunity defense and that plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees against defendants was precluded by the Alabama Constitution as to plaintiffs' state-law claims. Plaintiffs then filed this third, appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded the case once again to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the issue of immunity and state-law claims, but remanded remand the case with instructions on the issue concerning section 6–6–20 and the federal-law claims. View "Working v. Jefferson County Election Commission" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case related to the service of four members of the Board of Directors for the Southern Valley County Recreation District. The State brought usurpation actions against Donald Keithly, Yvette Davis, Patrick Cowles, and Michael Smith (the Directors), alleging they usurped their offices as directors of the Recreation District. The State requested they be removed from office and sought a fine against each of them. Upon the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that this action was an election contest, rather than a usurpation action, which could be brought by the State. The district court also ruled that the Directors' actions while in office were protected by the de facto officer doctrine. The State appealed, arguing this was a proper usurpation action and the de facto officer doctrine did not apply. The Directors cross-appealed, arguing they are entitled to attorney fees. The Supreme Court concluded the matter was moot and affirmed the district court's order denying attorney fees. View "Idaho v. Keithly" on Justia Law

North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2, which would have abolished property taxes, was disapproved by the voters in the June 2012 primary election. Empower the Taxpayer ("Empower"), Charlene Nelson, and Robert Hale supported Measure 2. Before the election, Empower, Nelson, and Hale brought this action against numerous state and local government officials and other entities alleging violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, and sought injunctive relief, including prohibiting the defendants from "advocating any position on Measure 2" and declaring the defendants "no longer eligible to run for public office." The County Defendants sought sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorney under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11, alleging the action against them was frivolous and that it had been brought for an improper purpose. The action was ultimately dismissed by the district court, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. After the action was dismissed, the district court considered the County Defendants' motion for sanctions, concluding a competent attorney could not in good faith have believed that a cause of action existed against the County Defendants. The court therefore ordered reasonable attorney fees and costs for defending against the action and that the plaintiffs prepare a written retraction of their allegations of corruption and impropriety to be published in the major newspapers of the state. Upon review of the sanctions issue, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's orders did not provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision; the Court was unable to adequately understand the basis for the court's decision to review on appeal. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded to the district court to clarify its opinion. View "Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong" on Justia Law

In June 2013, in Pueblo and El Paso County citizens certified petitions to recall State Senator Angela Giron and State Senator John Morse. A month later, the Governor set a September 10 recall election for both Senate seats. This recall election was the first in Colorado's history for members of the General Assembly. The Governor then submitted an Interrogatory to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article VI, section 3,of the Colorado Constitution to ask whether the prior participation requirement in Article XXI, section 3, of the Colorado Constitution conflicted with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Colorado Court issued an Order holding that the prior participation requirement in Article XXI, section 3, conflicted with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. View "In re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Hickenlooper" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Vermont resident and voter, filed a complaint seeking declarations that Barack Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" as required for eligibility to be President in Article II, Clause 4, of the Federal Constitution and was thus unqualified to be on the ballot for the Office of President, and that Mr. Obama's Petition for Nomination for the primary election and filings for the general election were "null and void" because of his ineligibility to hold office. In addition, plaintiff sought an injunction against the Vermont Secretary of State to bar the Secretary from including Mr. Obama's name on the election ballot in Vermont. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit because the claim was "an impermissible generalized grievance." Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal, and subsequently filed a motion in late 2012 for an expedited hearing before this Court in advance of the Joint Session of Congress that would take place on January 6. This Vermont Supreme Court denied the motion. Plaintiff argued this case was not moot because the Court could provide relief by declaring that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen, and asserted that a controversy continues through plaintiff's efforts to safeguard his life, liberty and property. The Vermont Court held this case was moot.View "Paige v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the ballot title for Initiative Petition 12 (2014). Because the Supreme Court concluded that the ballot title did not 4 substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2), it referred it to the Attorney General for modification.View "Rasmussen v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Petitioners the State and the South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) requested the Supreme Court declare a proposed tax referendum invalid under the Capital Project Sales Tax Act, sections 4-10-300 to -380 of the South Carolina Code, and enjoin Respondents the County of Florence, Florence County Council, and Florence County Registration and Elections Commission from placing the proposed referendum on the ballot for county elections. The Court found Respondents' actions valid pursuant to the Act, and denied Petitioners' request for an injunction. Accordingly, the tax referendum was permitted to go forward.View "South Carolina v. County of Florence" on Justia Law

Gloria Richmond Jackson appealed the Circuit Court Special Judge’s dismissal with prejudice of her petition for judicial review of an election contest, which contested the result of a Democratic primary runoff election. Jackson’s petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because she failed to attach two attorney certificates to her petition, as required by statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the special judge erred by dismissing Jackson’s petition with prejudice for the nonmerits issue of lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order of dismissal with prejudice was vacated and the case remanded back to the circuit court special judge with instruction to enter an order dismissing this action without prejudice. View "Jackson v. Bell" on Justia Law

Cincinnati for Pension Reform (CPR) qualified an initiative to amend the Cincinnati City Charter for the November 5, 2013 ballot. Because CPR objected to the ballot language adopted by the Hamilton County Board of Elections to describe the proposed amendment, it sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to adopt new ballot language and to compel the Secretary of State to approve the new language. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ in part and denied it in part, holding (1) the Board abused its discretion by adopting ballot language that omitted two key provisions of the proposed charter amendment; but (2) CPR did not establish entitlement to a writ against the Secretary of State.View "State ex rel. Cincinnati for Pension Reform v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Relator sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Mahoning County Board of Elections from placing the name of Demaine Kitchen, an independent candidate for mayor of Youngstown, on the November 5, 2013 general election ballot, contending that Kitchen was actually a Democrat and that his profession of independence was not made in good faith. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relator failed to satisfy his burden of proof, and therefore, the Board did not abuse its discretion by placing Kitchen's name on the ballot. In addition, the Court denied Relator's motion to strike the Board's answer on the grounds of improper service, as Relator failed to demonstrate any harm from the improper service.View "State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law