Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

In this appeal challenging the constitutionality of Alabama’s three percent signature requirement for ballot access under certain election circumstances, the Eleventh Circuit held that the case was moot.Under Alabama law, independent candidates for political office have the right to have their name listed on the election ballot by filing a petition signed by at least three percent of qualified electors. James Hall, who ran as an independent candidate in a special election to fill a vacancy in Alabama’s First United States House of Representatives District, brought this action challenging the constitutionality of the three percent requirement as applied during a special election cycle. The district court issued a declaratory judgment that Alabama’s three percent signature requirement for ballot access violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments when enforced during any off-season special election for a U.S. House of Representatives seat in Alabama. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot, holding that there was no expectation that Hall, the same complaining party, will again be subject to the three percent requirement as an independent candidate or voter in a special election for a U.S. House seat. View "Hall v. Secretary, State of Alabama" on Justia Law

Washington voters referred Initiative 940 ("I-940") to the Legislature; I-940 was an initiative concerning police reform. The legislature also passed a conditional bill, ESHB 3003, purporting to prospectively amend 1-940 if it passed later-in this case, just a few minutes later. But that conditional, prospective bill violated the explicit language and allocation of legislative power contained in article II, section 1 of the Washington Constitution. A divided Washington Supreme Court majority affirmed a superior court's decision to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Washington Secretary of State to place I-940 on the ballot. View "Eyman v. Wyman" on Justia Law

In this primary election challenge, the Supreme Court ordered that the name of David Y. Ige be placed on the ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for the Office of Governor for the 2018 general election, holding that the election objection filed by Plaintiff Richard Kim failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted.Kim, one of six Democratic Party candidates for the Office of Governor in the August 11, 2018 primary election, filed this complaint challenging the August 11, 2018 primary election. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Ige bribed committed election offenses and asked the Supreme Court to disqualify Ige as the Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate and order a new primary election without Ige’s name on the ballot. The supreme Court held (1) this Court did not have original jurisdiction to prosecute the criminal offenses alleged by Kim; and (2) Kim could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. View "Kim v. Ige " on Justia Law

In this election contest, the Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants ordering that the name of David Y. Ige be placed on the ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for the Office of Governor for the 2018 general election.Plaintiff, one of six Democratic Party candidates for the Office of Governor in the August 11, 2018 primary election, filed an election objection challenging the primary election and alleging, among other things, that Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa’s candidacy for the Office of Governor violated the “resign to run” provision in Haw. Const. art. II, 7 and that Chief Election Officer Scott Nago was guilty of election fraud. The Supreme Court held (1) inasmuch as Ige received the highest votes, he was a necessary and indispensable party who should have been named as a defendant and served with a copy of the complaint; and (2) the election objection failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. View "Kim v. State " on Justia Law

The Alaska Democratic Party amended its bylaws to allow registered independent voters to run as candidates in its primary elections without having to become Democratic Party members. But the Division of Elections refused to allow independent voter candidates on the Democratic Party primary election ballot, taking the position that Alaska election law, specifically the “party affiliation rule,” prevented anyone not registered as a Democrat from being a candidate in the Democratic Party’s primary elections. The Democratic Party sued for declaratory and injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the party affiliation rule, and the superior court ruled in its favor. The State appealed. Because the Alaska Constitution’s free association guarantee protects a political party’s choice to open its primary elections to independent voter candidates, and because in this specific context the State had no countervailing need to enforce the party affiliation rule, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision. View "Alaska v. Alaska Democratic Party" on Justia Law

A complaint filed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) against John Eberhart was filed when he was a city council member, alleging Eberhart had improperly used government resources in his campaign for mayor of Fairbanks. After investigating the complaint and holding a hearing, APOC fined Eberhart $37.50 for improper use of government resources in violation of a state statute. Eberhart appealed to the superior court, which affirmed APOC’s decision. Eberhart petitioned the Alaska Supreme Court to find APOC misinterpreted and misapplied relevant statutes, violated the First Amendment, and violated its own procedural rules. The Supreme Court affirmed APOC’s decision, holding that Eberhart’s arguments lacked merit. View "Eberhart v. Alaska Public Offices Commission" on Justia Law

In this action alleging that improprieties occurred during the recount of votes in sixteen Muskingum County precincts and seeking writs of mandamus to certify official election results that excluded all ballots cast in those sixteen precincts, the Supreme Court sua sponte dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.After the amended complaint was filed, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Court denied the motion but, based on its independent review, sua sponte dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim because the relators failed to allege facts sufficient to establish causation - an essential element of undoing the election results. The Court then denied all eight remaining motions as moot. View "State ex rel. Leneghan v. Husted" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal brought by the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) from a partial judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket mandating the implementation of one provision of the citizen initiative expanding Medicaid coverage.The initiating petition in this case requested numerous forms of relief. The superior court addressed only one component of the requested relief due to ripeness issues. The Supreme Judicial Court decided that it must dismiss this appeal as interlocutory because the petition was not disposed of in its entirety and no exception to the final judgment rule existed. View "Maine Equal Justice Partners v. Commissioner, Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

In this expedited elections case, the Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition to prevent the Delaware County Board of Elections (the Board) from placing a township zoning referendum on the November 2018 ballot, holding that the referendum petition lacked sufficient signatures for placement on the ballot.The Board found that the petition had 127 valid signatures, eleven more than necessary, and certified the referendum to the November 2018 ballot. After their protest was rejected by the Board, protestors filed this prohibition action. The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition and ordered the Board to remove the referendum from the ballot, holding (1) one of the part-petitions was invalid because a person other than the circulator indicated the number of signatures that the circulator had witnessed; and (2) without the signatures on that part-petition, the referendum lacked sufficient signatures and could not proceed to the ballot. View "State ex rel. McCann v. Delaware County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

In November 1992, San Diego voters approved an amendment to the city charter that established a term limit for members of the San Diego City Council. Bryan Pease was a city council candidate who did not qualify for the November 2018 general election. He contended Councilmember Lorie Zapf, who received the most votes in the primary election, was termed out of office and ineligible to run in the general election, and he should have been placed on the ballot instead. Councilmember Zapf represented District 6 during her first term of office and represented District 2 during her second term of office. As a result of redistricting that occurred during Councilmember Zapf's first term of office, she resided in District 2 for both terms. Based on her residency, Pease contended Councilmember Zapf already served two consecutive terms from the same district and was thus termed out of office. The Court of Appeal determined this interpretation was not supported by the language of the term limit provision and failed to take into account other relevant charter provisions, including the impact of the redistricting provision. “The term limit provision regulates the number of terms an incumbent may serve on behalf of the electors of a given district, and is not dependent solely on residency.” The Court held Councilmember Zapf was eligible for reelection in the November 2018 general election. View "Pease v. Zapf" on Justia Law