Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant was appointed as the village of New Miami fiscal officer. Later the mayor discovered that Appellant failed to properly perform his duties as village fiscal officer, and the village council passed a resolution terminating Appellant's employment as fiscal officer without cause. The mayor subsequently appointed Appellee as the new village fiscal officer. Approximately three years later Appellant filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of quo warranto ousting Appellee from the office of fiscal officer and reinstating him to the office. The court of appeals denied the writ and awarded Appellee reasonable attorney fees and expenses. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment denying the writ of quo warranto and most of the challenged rulings on various motions in the case, holding that the court of appeals properly held that Appellant could not establish either that the office of village fiscal order was being unlawfully held by Appellee or that Appellant was entitled to the office; and (2) reversed the judgment awarding reasonable attorney fees and expenses, holding that the court of appeals erred in imposing sanctions under Ohio R. Civ. P. 11 without holding an evidentiary hearing. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Ebbing v. Ricketts" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned Defendants’ entitlement to trial by jury. Specifically, whether the Court’s holding in "Beauclaire v. Greenhouse" mandated that a resolution in accordance with La. R.S. 13:5015, waiving the prohibition against jury trials in suits against a political subdivision, must be passed by the political subdivision prior to a plaintiff filing suit for the political subdivision to be entitled to a trial by jury. Upon review of the applicable statutory and case law authority, the Supreme Court found that Defendants were entitled to trial by jury, and therefore reversed the rulings of the lower courts. View "Marcille v. Dauzat" on Justia Law

The district court concluded that the State of Montana's contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated 13-37-216 were unconstitutional under the First Amendment and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing its campaign contribution limits. The State sought a stay of the district court's order, pending appeal. The court concluded that the state was likely to succeed on appeal. The court concluded that the State had made a strong showing that a merits panel of the court would likely conclude that, absent en banc proceedings or an intervening decision of the Supreme Court, the court remained bound by its decision in Mont. Right to Life Ass'n v. Eddleman. The court also concluded that a merits panel was likely to hold that the analytical framework of the Supreme Court's decision in Randall v. Sorrell did not alter the analysis of Buckley v. Valeo or Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC in a way that affected the court's decision in Eddleman. In light of the State's interest in regulating campaign contributions, the lack of evidence that other parties would be substantially injured, and the public's substantial interest in the stability of its electoral system in the final weeks leading to an election, the court will stay the order pending the state's appeal. View "Lair, et al v. Bullock, et al" on Justia Law

The City of West Memphis passed an ordinance providing for a special election to vote for the annexation of 5700 acres to West Memphis. Meanwhile, property owners of 2340 acres within the same 5700 acres petitioned the county court for annexation to the City of Marion. The county court granted the petition for annexation to Marion, and Marion accepted the 2340 acres. Marion subsequently sought a writ of mandamus against West Memphis to remove the 2340 acres from the legal description of the special-election ballot. The circuit court denied the writ but issued a declaratory judgment finding that the 2340 acres belonged to Marion. West Marion held its scheduled election, and the 5700-acre legal description, including the 2340 acres that had been annexed to Marion, appeared on the ballot. The West Memphis voters approved the annexation measure. Litigation followed. Ultimately, the circuit court found (1) West Memphis was not required to amend the 5700-acre legal description, and (2) the Marion annexation frustrated only the 2340 acres annexed by Marion, and the remaining 3360 acres became part of West Memphis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court reached the right result in finding the 3360 acres became a part of West Memphis. View "City of Marion v. City of West Memphis" on Justia Law

Ohio requires that provisional ballots be cast in the correct precinct, with a completed voter affirmation, making no exception for wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation ballots caused by poll-worker error, O.R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(ii)–(iii) and (B)(4)(b)(ii). A 2010 consent decree required the counting of certain wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots where poll-worker error caused the nonconformity and the voters used the last four digits of their social security number for identification to cast their ballots. The ballot of a provisional voter using any other form of identification (e.g., current photo identification, current utility bill, paycheck) would not be counted.The district court denied a motion to vacate the decree and entered a preliminary injunction requiring the counting of all wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots to remedy systemic exclusion of nonconforming ballots caused by poll-worker error. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the wrong-precinct remedy and reversed the deficient affirmation remedy and remanded for the district court to address the equal protection issue created by the consent decree’s provision for counting deficient-affirmation ballots by voters providing social security numbers, and a motion to modify the consent decree in light of the equal protection concerns raised by the consent decree’s differential treatment of provisional ballots. View "NE Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted" on Justia Law

In 2008, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. (ACORN) hired voter registration canvassers in Las Vegas. Under an incentive program, ACORN paid canvassers $5 a bonus if the canvasser returned twenty-one or more voter registration applications. The State subsequently charged ACORN and the supervisor of ACORN's field director for Nevada with several counts of violating Nev. Rev. Stat. 293.805, which prohibits providing compensation to voter registration canvassers based upon the total number of voters a canvasser registers. The supervisor entered an Alford plea to two counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters, and was adjudged guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 293.805 triggers a less exacting standard of review than strict scrutiny; (2) the State demonstrated an interest sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation imposed on canvassing activities, and therefore, section 293.805 does not violate the First Amendment; and (3) section 293.805 is not unconstitutionally vague. View "Busefink v. State" on Justia Law

In July 2012, Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed a complaint, alleging that Ohio Rev. Code 3509.03 was unconstitutional insofar as it imposed on non-military voters a deadline of 6:00 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day for in-person early voting. Military service associations were allowed to intervene. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, finding that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. Neither of the state’s justifications was sufficient to justify the distinction imposed by the law. View "Obama for Am. v. Husted" on Justia Law

Intervenors were sponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment that would authorize them to own and operate casinos in four specified counties within the state. Respondent was the secretary of state and certified intervenors' proposed amendment for the November 6, 2012 general election. Petitioners were taxpayers, voters, and members of the Arkansas Racing Alliance, a ballot-question committee expressly organized to advocate for the defeat of two proposed constitutional amendments, one of which was intervenors'. In this original action, Petitioners requested that the Supreme Court declare the initiative petition insufficient and the revised ballot title invalid and enjoin Respondent from placing the proposed constitutional amendment on the general election ballot. The Court vacated the certification, holding that the certification of intervenors' revised ballot title was improper because that title was not attached to the petition circulated to, and signed by, the voters. View "Walmsley v. Todd" on Justia Law

In 2006, two ballot measures were placed before Oregon voters at the polls. Measure 46 (2006) sought to amend the Oregon Constitution to permit the enactment of laws prohibiting or limiting electoral campaign "contributions and expenditures, of any type or description." Measure 47 (2006) sought to create new campaign finance statutes that would, essentially, statutorily implement the constitutional changes proposed in Measure 46. Voters rejected Measure 46 but approved Measure 47. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case required the examination of the operative text of Measure 47. The trial court concluded that the text at issue was severable from the ballot measure and ruled that the remaining provisions of the measure were, according to the plain text of the measure itself, dormant. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court's judgment and the decision by the Court of Appeals. View "Hazell v. Brown" on Justia Law

Appellant Ivan Gonzalez-Cancel aspired to run for Governor of Puerto Rico as Partido Nuevo Progresista's ("PNP") candidate in the 2012 general election. When he applied for the job, however, PNP said he was not qualified. Gonzalez-Cancel and Jose Barbosa, a supporter of Gonzalez-Cancel's candidacy, sued PNP and Puerto Rico's Elections Commission in federal court, alleging that the decision violated their constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Appellants' claims did not fall within one of the few narrow exceptions required for a federal court's intervention in state or local electoral disputes. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the exercise of federal jurisdiction over this election dispute was not appropriate. View "Gonzalez-Cancel v. Partido Nuevo Progresista" on Justia Law