Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

A candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor of Georgia, who was not the incumbent, challenged a unique provision of Georgia’s campaign finance law. This law allows only the incumbent Governor and Lieutenant Governor to establish and control so-called “leadership committees” with the ability to receive unlimited contributions and coordinate spending directly with their campaigns, advantages not available to challengers or other candidates. The challenger entered the 2026 gubernatorial primary and quickly discovered that his opponent, the sitting Lieutenant Governor, had amassed substantial campaign resources through such a leadership committee, while the challenger remained subject to standard contribution limits.After filing suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the challenger sought a preliminary injunction to stop the Lieutenant Governor’s leadership committee from raising or spending further funds in support of his campaign. The district court initially issued a temporary restraining order, then, after further proceedings, granted a preliminary injunction, holding that the challenger was likely to succeed on his claim that the law violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and that the leadership committee’s actions could be fairly attributed to state action. The district court determined that the law’s favoritism toward select officials could not be justified and that the harm to the challenger was irreparable. However, the injunction was stayed pending appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. The court held that the selective fundraising advantage granted to certain incumbents by the leadership committee statute was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as it imposed different contribution limits on candidates for the same office without sufficient justification. The court also found that the leadership committee’s conduct constituted state action, making it subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Jackson v. Jones" on Justia Law

Two Georgia voters, William T. Quinn and David Cross, independently analyzed Georgia’s voter registration list by comparing it with the United States Postal Service’s National Change of Address database. Believing they had found evidence that the Secretary of State was not properly maintaining the voter rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and state law, they notified the Secretary, requesting that potentially ineligible voters be flagged and notified. When the Secretary did not respond, the plaintiffs filed suit, asserting that this alleged failure undermined their confidence in the election process and risked diluting their votes.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ claimed injuries—undermined confidence in elections and risk of vote dilution—were generalized grievances common to all Georgia voters, not injuries particularized to the plaintiffs themselves. The court reasoned that any voter could express similar concerns based on the state’s alleged noncompliance with the NVRA, and that such concerns were too speculative to confer standing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were not particularized, as the supposed harm—loss of confidence in the electoral process—equally affected all Georgia voters. The court concluded that merely discovering or believing in government error, even after personal investigation, does not transform a generalized grievance into a particularized injury sufficient for federal court standing. Thus, the plaintiffs lacked standing, and the dismissal was affirmed. View "Quinn v. Secretary of State, State of Georgia" on Justia Law

A voter in Sarasota County, Florida, who is not affiliated with any political party, challenged Florida's closed primary election system. He argued that the system forces him to either join a political party to have a meaningful vote or forfeit his right to vote in primary elections, which he claimed was unconstitutional. The district court dismissed his case, concluding that he lacked standing and failed to state a claim for relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the voter had standing to sue the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections because his exclusion from primary elections was traceable to the Supervisor and could be redressed by a court order. However, the court determined that the voter lacked standing to sue the Florida Secretary of State, as the Secretary did not have direct control over the Supervisor's actions.On the merits, the court applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the voter's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court concluded that the burdens imposed by Florida's closed primary system on the voter's rights were minimal. The court found that the state's interests in preserving political parties as viable and identifiable interest groups and enhancing candidates' electioneering efforts outweighed the minimal burdens on the voter's rights.The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the claims against the Florida Secretary of State without prejudice and to dismiss the claims against the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections with prejudice. View "Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State" on Justia Law

In 2010, Alabama made changes to its election law that impacted the ADC’s ability to raise and spend money in state elections. The ADC filed suit challenging Alabama Code 17-5-15(b) (the PAC-to-PAC transfer ban), which limited the ADC's fundraising abilities. On appeal, the ADC challenges the district court's final judgment in favor of the State, arguing that the PAC-to-PAC transfer ban is unconstitutional as applied because the ban violates the ADC’s First Amendment right to make independent expenditures. The court concluded that the State’s proffered interest in transparency ties into its interest in preventing corruption to justify regulating transfers between PACs. The court also concluded that the PAC-to-PAC transfer ban as applied to the ADC is sufficiently closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms. The ban had met the less rigorous "closely drawn" standard by being narrowly tailored to achieve Alabama's desired objective in preventing quid pro quo corruption (or its appearance) as applied to the ADC in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's finding on the merits that the ban is constitutional as applied to ADC. View "The Alabama Democratic Conference v. Attorney General, State of Alabama" on Justia Law