Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants, two Minnesota-based, grassroots advocacy organizations and their leaders, filed suit claiming that a provision of the Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), Minn. Stat. 211B.01 et seq., inhibits appellants' ability to speak freely against school-funding ballot initiatives and, thereby, violates their First Amendment rights. The court rejected the county attorney's renewed challenge to standing; because the speech at issue occupies the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment, the court applied strict scrutiny to legislation attempting to regulate it; the county attorneys failed to demonstrate that the interests advanced in support of section 211B.06 - preserving fair and honest elections and preventing fraud on the electorate - is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest where the section is both overbroad and underinclusive and is not the least restrictive means of achieving any stated goal; and the attorney general is immune to suit. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "281 Care Committee, et al. v. Arneson, et al." on Justia Law

On April 15, 2014, the Columbus Coalition for Responsive Government filed a precirculation copy of a proposed initiative ordinance with the Columbus city clerk. On July 15, 2014, the Coalition submitted 497 part-petitions to the clerk. Andrea Blevins, the Columbus city clerk, refused to submit the proposed initiative to city council on the grounds that the part-petitions were defective because the Coalition had failed to file a certified precirculation copy of the proposed initiative ordinance with the city auditor in compliance with Ohio Rev. Code 731.32. The Coalition sought a writ of mandamus to verify the petition signatures and submit the petition to city council. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that section 731.32 requires strict compliance. View "State ex rel. Columbus Coal. for Responsive Gov’t v. Blevins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Nelson Waikiki, Jr. was one of seven candidates for the Maui County Mayoral seat in the August 9, 2014 special primary election. Plaintiff received the fourth highest number of votes in the election. On August 22, 2014, Waikiki requested a re-vote or a re-count due to conspiracy and corruption by election officials. Chief Election Officer Scott Nago moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely and for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that Waikiki failed to present specific facts or actual information of mistakes or error sufficient to change the results of the election, and therefore, Waikiki could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. View "Waikiki v. Nago " on Justia Law

At issue in the case was a proclamation made by Chief Election Officer Scott Nago on Friday August 8, 2014 that closed two polling places on the Big Island and postponed the elections for Precincts 04-01 and 04-02. The next day, the primary election went forward as scheduled. On Friday, August 15, 2014, the election proceeded for Precincts 04-01 and 04-02 and was subsequently completed. On August 21, 2014, Plaintiffs, none of whom identified were registered voters of precincts that were closed on Saturday, August 9, 2014 or candidates for elected office, filed an election contest complaint against Nago and the Office of Elections, alleging that Nago should be fired because voters were denied their right to vote. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding (1) Plaintiffs were not proper parties to the election contest and lacked the requisite standing under Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-172; and (2) even if Plaintiffs had standing, the complaint failed to set forth any allegations that would demonstrate errors, mistakes, or irregularities that would change the election result. View "Cermelj v. Nago " on Justia Law

Plaintiff William O'Brien appealed a Superior Court order that granted summary judgment in favor of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Raymond Buckley, Chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, and denied plaintiff’s motion. The trial court ruled that plaintiff, who was a Republican candidate for re-election to the New Hampshire House of Representatives, did not have standing to file an action for damages under RSA 664:14-a (2008), the "Robocall Statute." In light of the fact that the Democratic party had fewer candidates than it had spaces on the November ballot, plaintiff sought "Democratic write-in votes in the September 14, 2010, primary so that he could appear on the ballot in the November cycle for elections as both (R)epublican and (D)emocrat." The day before the primary, defendants called 394 households with a prerecorded political message. Plaintiff received the highest number of votes in the Republican primary, winning a place on the general election ballot as a Republican. He did not secure enough votes in the Democratic Primary to also appear on the November ballot as a Democrat. In the general election, plaintiff won a seat in the House of Representatives. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the office of the Attorney General, alleging that defendants violated the Robocall Statute, because they were "responsible for calls containing a prerecorded political message that lacked the statutorily required disclosures." In August 2011, the Democratic Party entered into a consent agreement with the attorney general to resolve claims for the alleged violation of the statute; the agreement was not an admission that defendants violated the statute. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit and denying his motion for summary judgment. He contended that the plain language of the statute was broad and intended to include candidates who are the subject of a prerecorded political message. Alternatively, he claimed that, even if the statute was deemed to be ambiguous, the legislative history did not support the trial court’s interpretation. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that plaintiff did not allege an injury flowing from the alleged statutory violation. Therefore, he did not have standing. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision.View "O'Brien v. New Hampshire Democratic Party " on Justia Law

Fawkes, the Virgin Islands Supervisor of Elections, disqualified Coffelt and Canegata from appearing on the general election ballot for the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor, respectively, for ostensible noncompliance with the Virgin Islands Election Code. The district court denied an injunction and dismissed the challenge to the Code. The Third Circuit entered an injunction pending appeal and later held that the candidacy is not barred under 18 V.I.C. 342a. Under the Election Code a candidate seeking public office may appear on the general election ballot by the traditional party-nomination process, under which a candidate submits a “nomination petition,” competes in the party’s primary election, and, if successful, appears on the general election ballot as that party’s official candidate. The Code also provides a “direct nomination” path to the general election ballot for candidates lacking the imprimatur of a recognized political party. The court found that the Election Code does not expressly require that Canegata renounce his party affiliation in order to seek office by direct nomination. View "Coffelt v. Fawkes" on Justia Law

The Green Party of Tennessee and the Constitution Party of Tennessee sought to appear on general election ballots as minor political parties. They filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging laws that they claimed have unconstitutionally impeded their access to the ballot. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs; the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, in part because Tennessee had amended the statutes at issue. On remand, the district court again granted the plaintiffs’ motion. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, first holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee’s election laws, but held that summary judgment was inappropriate. The court remanded the questions of whether the state’s ballot-access scheme for minor political parties unconstitutionally burdens the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights and whether the state’s preferential ballot-ordering statute impermissibly discriminates against minor political parties in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs are a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees, but the court vacated the district court’s fee award and remanded for recalculation. View "Green Party of TN v. Hargett" on Justia Law

Marc Rosen, a retired senior status special judge who sought to become a candidate for circuit judge in the 2014 election, filed a declaratory judgment action contesting the constitutionality of HB 427, a statute that prohibits judges who have chosen to retire as a senior status special judge from becoming candidate for an elected office for five years after retirement. The circuit court found Rosen was disqualified from being a candidate under the terms of HB 427 without ruling on the constitutionality of the statute. Rosen petitioned the court of appeals to set aside the circuit court order, and the court granted the motion. George W. Davis then initiated a writ action in the court of appeals, arguing that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide Rosen’s constitutional challenge. The court of appeals denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Rosen’s declaratory action regarding the constitutionality of HB 427. View "Hon. George W. Davis, III v. Hon. Thomas D. Wingate" on Justia Law

Given time constraints associated with an impending primary election contest, this election appeal was previously resolved in per curiam Order of the Supreme Court. With the exigency abated, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took an opportunity to supplement its brief explanation provided in the earlier Order. The Court determined that Pennsylvania courts are not empowered to employ principles of equity to override the express statutory command that the failure of a candidate for statewide public office to file a timely statement of financial interests with the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission "shall . . . be a fatal defect to a petition to appear on the ballot." On March 10, 2014, Robert Guzzardi filed a timely nomination petition with the Department of State, seeking placement of his name on the ballot for the Republican nomination for the Office of Governor. Although an original statement of financial interests was appended to his petition, Mr. Guzzardi failed to make the mandatory tender to the Ethics Commission prior to the statutory deadline. Appellants, qualified electors and registered voters, filed a petition to set the nomination petition aside in the Commonwealth Court. Among other challenges, they invoked the statutory fatal-defect rule which, by its plain terms, required Mr. Guzzardi’s name to be removed from the primary election ballot, in light of his undisputed failure to file a timely statement of financial interests with the Ethics Commission. The Commonwealth Court, however, refused to enforce the governing legislative directive. Rather, the single judge administering the matter conducted a hearing and issued an order denying Appellants’ objections. In an unpublished opinion, she relied on a line of Commonwealth Court decisions which have found the judiciary to be possessed with the power to permit a fatal defect to be "cured" through the application of equitable principles: it was the court’s position that Mr. Guzzardi had offered sufficient, non-negligent explanations to justify treating his late-filed statement nunc pro tunc, or as if it had been submitted to the Ethics Commission on time. "[T]here is no dispute here that the statutory fatal-defect rule applied squarely in Mr. Guzzardi’s circumstances, on account of his failure to timely file a statement of financial interests with the Commission. Moreover, Appellants lodged timely objections to his nomination petition, bringing the matter squarely before the Commonwealth Court. In the circumstances, the Commonwealth Court erred in refusing to enforce the governing statutory command." View "In Re: Nomination of Guzzardi" on Justia Law

Following an election recount in the Town of Center, Maurice Jones and Citizen Center filed suit seeking to set aside the results of the recount. Jones argued that voters' right to ballot secrecy had been violated. The district court set aside the results and ordered a new recall election. The three officials who had been elected in the recall petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the district court's decision. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court held that the district court erred as a matter of law in setting aside the recall results and ordering a new election. As such, the Court reversed the district court and enter judgment in favor of the newly elected officials. View "In re Jones v. Samora" on Justia Law