Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Upstate Jobs Party (UJP) and two of its leaders who sued the Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections over campaign finance regulations. UJP, an independent body, argued that it is similarly situated to political parties because both nominate candidates that compete in the same elections. UJP claimed that New York's preferential treatment of parties violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. UJP also asserted First Amendment violations, alleging that New York's campaign finance rules distinguishing between parties and independent bodies are not closely drawn to a sufficient state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance thereof.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York determined that differences in contribution limits applicable to parties and independent bodies violate the Fourteenth and the First Amendments. However, it also determined that allowing parties but not independent bodies to maintain so-called “housekeeping accounts” did not violate either amendment. Both UJP and the State Board appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s judgment. The court held that parties and independent bodies are not similarly situated, and that the state’s contribution limits and housekeeping account exception are closely drawn to serve the state’s anticorruption interests. Therefore, the court concluded that the state’s campaign finance laws withstand all constitutional challenges raised. View "Upstate Jobs Party v. Kosinksi" on Justia Law

The case involves the Tennessee Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) challenging a state policy that requires some convicted felons to submit additional documentation to confirm their eligibility to vote. The NAACP argued that this policy violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). A district court agreed with the NAACP and permanently enjoined the policy in the middle of the 2024 election cycle. Tennessee's Secretary of State and Coordinator of Elections appealed this decision and sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal.The district court's decision was based on the finding that the NAACP had standing to challenge the policy and that the policy violated the NVRA. The court held that the policy was unnecessary for determining the eligibility of those with felony convictions as the state had other information at its disposal to make that decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted the stay for two reasons. First, the injunction triggered the Supreme Court’s “Purcell principle,” which instructs federal courts not to disrupt state election rules close to an election. Second, the court found that the NAACP likely did not present enough evidence to prove its standing to challenge the Documentation Policy. The court concluded that the NAACP's claim that the policy forced it to divert its resources to help those convicted of felonies track down the records they need to register was not supported by specific facts. View "Tennessee Conference of the NAACP v. Lee" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to two Delaware voting statutes: one allowing absentee voters to request "permanent absentee" status, and the other authorizing qualified, registered voters to vote in person at least 10 days before an election. The plaintiffs, a citizen who plans to serve as an election inspector and a Delaware State Senator, argued that these statutes conflict with the Delaware Constitution's provisions governing elections and voting.The case was initially filed in the Court of Chancery, which dismissed it on jurisdictional grounds. The plaintiffs then pursued their claims in the Superior Court. The Superior Court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case and ruled in their favor, declaring the challenged statutes unconstitutional.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed the Superior Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that neither plaintiff had standing to challenge the statutes. The court held that the State Senator, who was not up for re-election until 2026, did not face an imminent or particularized harm. The court also found that the citizen, who planned to serve as an election inspector, did not have standing because his role as an inspector did not give him the authority to turn away lawful voters based on his personal belief that the challenged statutes were invalid. Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that they had standing as registered voters, finding that their alleged injury was a generalized grievance shared by all voters, not a particularized harm. As a result of these findings, the court did not address the merits of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. View "Albence v. Mennella" on Justia Law

The case involves two groups of plaintiffs, referred to as the Schneider plaintiffs and the Page plaintiffs, who challenged the title and one-sentence "yes/no" statements prepared by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) for Initiative Petition 23-36. This petition proposed to replace the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests, currently used as a measure of student competency for high school graduation, with a system where students must satisfactorily complete coursework certified by their district as showing mastery of state academic standards.The plaintiffs filed their complaints in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, arguing that the title and one-sentence statements were misleading and inconsistent with the requirements of G. L. c. 54, § 53. The Page plaintiffs contended that the statements only mentioned the elimination of MCAS without stating that it would be replaced with something else. The Schneider plaintiffs argued that the statements did not disclose that the petition would prohibit the use of any uniform statewide assessment as a graduation requirement.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the title and one-sentence statements accurately characterized the petition's proposal to eliminate MCAS tests as a graduation requirement. The court noted that while the petition also proposed a new assessment scheme and prohibited any future statewide assessment from being used as a graduation requirement, these were not distinct regulatory features of the petition. The court concluded that the title and one-sentence statements did not need to describe every feature of the petition. The court also rejected the additional arguments forwarded by the Page plaintiffs. The court remanded the matter to the county court for entry of a judgment declaring that the Attorney General and Secretary's title and one-sentence statements were in compliance with the requirements of G. L. c. 54, § 53. View "Schneider v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

This case involves five ballot initiative petitions related to the classification of "app-based drivers" (drivers) as employees of delivery network companies or transportation network companies (collectively, companies). The petitions aim to ensure that drivers are not classified as employees, thereby excluding them from the rights, privileges, and protections that Massachusetts General and Special Laws confer on employees. Three of the five petitions couple this deprivation with "minimum compensation, healthcare stipends, earned paid sick time, and occupational accident insurance." The other two do not.The plaintiffs, a group of registered voters, challenged the Attorney General's certification of the petitions and the fairness and conciseness of the summaries prepared by the Attorney General. They argued that the petitions do not meet the related subjects requirement of the Massachusetts Constitution, that one of the petitions inappropriately asks voters for an exemption from the entirety of Massachusetts law, and that the three long-form versions contain prohibited "sweeteners" that are misleadingly described. They also argued that the petitions are designed to confuse by using dense and technical language.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk found that all five petitions share a common purpose of defining and governing the relationship between drivers and companies, and thus meet the related subjects requirement. The court also found that the Attorney General's summaries of the petitions were fair and concise, as required by the Massachusetts Constitution. The court remanded the case to the county court for entry of a declaration that the Attorney General's certifications and summaries comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Constitution. However, the court retained jurisdiction to revisit its rulings and conclusions if the proponents seek to place more than one petition on the November ballot. View "El Koussa v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the certification of Initiative Petition 23-35, "An Act Giving Transportation Network Drivers the Option to Form a Union and Bargain Collectively" by the Attorney General. The plaintiffs argued that the petition should not have been certified as it does not meet the requirement of containing only related subjects. They contended that the provisions allowing transportation network drivers to organize and collectively bargain with transportation network companies are unrelated to its provisions subjecting the results of any collective bargaining to supervision, review, and approval by the Commonwealth's Secretary of Labor.The case was brought before the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, where the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the petition does not satisfy the related subjects requirement of art. 48, and an order enjoining the Secretary of the Commonwealth from placing the petition on the Statewide election ballot. The plaintiffs argued that the Secretary of Labor's role in the collective bargaining process is not part of the integrated scheme proposed by the petition.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument. The court concluded that the petition seeks to establish a multistep collective bargaining scheme in which the Secretary of Labor's role is an integrated component. Therefore, the subjects of the petition are related for purposes of art. 48. The court affirmed the Attorney General's certification of the petition. The court also noted that the Secretary of Labor's supervisory role is designed to anticipate and address a potential consequence of the collective bargaining process the petition seeks to create, specifically a legal challenge that the collective bargaining process would be preempted by Federal antitrust law. View "Craney v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A group of Utah voters, led by Ian Daniel Phillips, sought to initiate state legislation that would impose an age limit on Utah candidates for federal office. The Lieutenant Governor of Utah rejected the group's initiative application, concluding that the proposed law was "patently unconstitutional" under U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, a Supreme Court case that forbids states from enacting laws imposing qualifications on candidates for federal congressional office. The group then sued the Lieutenant Governor, seeking a declaration that the initiative is not patently unconstitutional and could become law if enacted.The district court dismissed the group's complaint, ruling that the proposed initiative is "squarely foreclosed by" Thornton, a decision that the court had no authority to overrule. The group appealed, maintaining that Thornton should be overruled because its prohibition on state-created qualifications for federal officeholders violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, they acknowledged that the Supreme Court of the State of Utah lacks authority to overturn Thornton and asked the court to affirm the district court’s decision, thereby paving the way for them to petition the United States Supreme Court for review.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that the group had appellate standing, despite their concession that they cannot prevail at this stage of the appeal. The court also agreed with the district court that the proposed law is patently unconstitutional under Thornton. Therefore, the group did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. View "Phillips v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The case involves Greater Birmingham Ministries, a multi-faith, multi-racial organization that promotes voter registration efforts in Alabama, and the Secretary of State for the State of Alabama. The organization requested electronic production of several voter lists, including records of individual felons disqualified from voting by Alabama, invoking the public disclosure provision of the National Voter Registration Act. The organization argued that the records should be produced electronically and at no cost. The Secretary of State agreed to provide an electronic version of the first list of voter records at a cost of one cent per name but refused to provide any records related to felony disqualifications, asserting that the request exceeded the scope of the Act.The district court ruled that the National Voter Registration Act entitled Greater Birmingham Ministries to both sets of records and that electronic disclosure was required in the specific circumstances of this case. The court also ruled that the Act entitled the Secretary to charge a “reasonable fee,” connected “to the actual costs he incurs in producing responsive voter records.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's order. The court held that the voter records that Greater Birmingham Ministries requested are covered by the National Voter Registration Act’s public disclosure provision. However, the court ruled that the Act does not require the Secretary to turn those records over in an electronic format. Therefore, the district court’s injunction ordering the Secretary to produce the records electronically was improper. The same is true for its direction that the parties reach agreement on a reasonable fee. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of civil rights organizations, voters, and an election official who sought to challenge recent amendments to Texas's election code, alleging that these amendments violated the United States Constitution and several federal statutes. The defendant was the District Attorney for Harris County, sued in her official capacity. The district court denied the District Attorney's motion to dismiss, holding that she was not immune from the plaintiffs' constitutional claims and that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims against her.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the district court should have dismissed the plaintiffs' constitutional claims as barred by sovereign immunity. The court did not reach the issue of standing. The court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.The court's decision was based on the principle of sovereign immunity, which generally protects state officials from being sued in their official capacities. However, there is an exception to this rule, known as the Ex parte Young exception, which allows federal courts to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional state statutes. The court found that the District Attorney did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the challenged laws to fall within this exception. Therefore, the court concluded that the District Attorney was immune from the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. View "Mi Familia Vota v. Ogg" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a lodging tax increase proposal in McCurtain County, Oklahoma, intended to fund a new county hospital. The Board of County Commissioners for McCurtain County approved the proposal to be submitted to the voters. However, the Board did not publish the proposal in a county newspaper for four weeks before the election as required by Title 19 O.S. 2021 §383. Instead, the Board and the Hospital engaged in a three-month campaign to inform voters of the measure through various means such as radio advertisements, billboards, newspaper articles, town hall meetings, and social media posts. After the measure was approved by the voters, a lodging renter and property owner filed a lawsuit seeking to have the election declared null and void due to the lack of newspaper publication. The Hospital sought to have the election upheld.The District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma, granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and Hospital, and against the lodging renter and property owner. The renter and owner appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that because the county commissioners neglected to follow the statutory publication requirements, the voter-approved lodging tax increase is invalid. The court emphasized that the Legislature has mandated what constitutes adequate notice by publication and anything less than strict compliance requires the court to invalidate the election. The court also encouraged the legislature to consider revisiting and possibly updating publication requirements to be more compatible with today's methods of communication. The decision of the lower court was reversed. View "Cathey v. Board of County Commissioners for McCurtain County" on Justia Law