Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case are three such Texas laws: Texas Election Code sections 61.003, 61.010, and 85.036 (collectively, the “electioneering laws”). Plaintiff filed this action, alleging that she was unconstitutionally censored under the electioneering laws when she voted in 2018 and that the statutes unconstitutionally “chilled” her right to free speech by criminalizing political expression within polling places. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, upheld section 61.010 as constitutional, but concluded that sections 61.003 and 85.036 are facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Both sides appealed, contesting jurisdictional issues as well as the merits.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s holding denying Texas’s Secretary of State and Attorney General sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed those defendants for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed that Plaintiff has standing to bring her claims against the remaining two Defendants. The court also affirmed the district court’s holding that section 61.010 is constitutional. However, the court reversed and rendered the district court’s holding that sections 61.003 and 85.036 are unconstitutional and instead uphold all three electioneering laws. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of nominal damages. View "Ostrewich v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The U.S. Constitution's Election Clause requires the legislature of each state to prescribe rules governing federal elections. Following the 2020 decennial census, North Carolina’s General Assembly drafted a new federal congressional map. The map was challenged under the North Carolina Constitution as impermissible partisan gerrymandering. The North Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged that gerrymandering claims are outside the reach of federal courts but held that such questions were not beyond the reach of North Carolina courts. The court enjoined the use of the maps but subsequently addressed a remedial map adopted by the trial court, repudiated its holding that gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the state constitution, and dismissed the suits without reinstating the 2021 maps.The Supreme Court first held that it had jurisdiction to review the Elections Clause holding. The court’s decision to withdraw its second decision and overrule the first did not moot the case; it did not amend the judgment concerning the 2021 maps nor alter the first decision’s analysis of the federal issue.The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. In prescribing such rules, they remain subject to state judicial review and to state constitutional constraints. When legislatures make laws, they are bound by the documents that give them life. When a state legislature carries out its federal constitutional power to prescribe rules regulating federal elections, it acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution and as the entity assigned particular authority by the U.S. Constitution. Both constitutions restrain that exercise of power. Federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. The Court declined to decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause. View "Moore v. Harper" on Justia Law

After the 2020 presidential election, Michigan election officials canvassed the results. Michigan law allows any candidate with a “good-faith belief” that he lost the election due to “fraud or mistake” to request a recount within 48 hours after the canvass. No candidate did so. On November 23, the bipartisan Board unanimously certified results indicating that Biden had won the state by 154,188 votes. On November 25, Plaintiffs sued several “state defendants,” asserting that they had “fraudulently manipulat[ed] the vote” through “a wide-ranging interstate—and international—collaboration” and that unspecified “foreign adversaries” and “hostile foreign governments” had accessed Dominion voting machines; that Detroit election officials had participated in countless violations of state election law, including an “illegal vote dump”; and that expert analysis showed that the election results were fraudulent. The Supreme Court declined to intervene. Michigan’s electors cast their votes for Biden. Detroit served plaintiffs and their attorneys with a “safe harbor” letter, warning that it would seek sanctions under Rule 11 if plaintiffs did not voluntarily dismiss their complaint. Plaintiffs did not respond. The district court held that plaintiffs’ counsel had violated Rule 11 by filing their suit for an improper purpose, failing to conduct an adequate prefiling inquiry into the legal and factual merits of their claims; and ordered plaintiffs’ attorneys to pay the reasonable legal fees of the moving defendants.The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part. The selective-enforcement claim (42 U.S.C. 1983) and a state-law claim were non-sanctionable under Rule 11. Plaintiffs’ other claims were all sanctionable. Counsel are liable for the defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees after December 14 because they failed to dismiss their case after it had concededly become moot the allegations in the complaint itself refuted allegations about the Dominion system used in Michigan. Allegations of harassment and intimidation, however, were credible. View "King v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 19-118.01 does not facially violate the First Amendment where it only prohibits per-signature compensation to petition circulators.A political action committee (PAC) hired AZ Petition Partners to collect signatures for the Invest in Education Act initiative. Initiative opponents brought this action for declaratory judgment against the PAC, alleging that Petitioner Partners' hourly rates and incentive programs violated section 19-118.01. Thereafter, the State filed fifty charges against Petition Partners. The court of appeals concluded that section 19-118.01(A) bans more than just per-signature payments, and therefore, the statute facially violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion and remanded the case, holding that section 19-118.01 only prohibits per-signature compensation. View "AZ Petition Partners LLC v. Honorable Thompson" on Justia Law

Appellants Sarah Thompson, Kevin Muldowney, and Edward Metz filed three, virtually identical complaints in their respective counties on December 6, 2022, alleging that the voting system used that day in the runoff election for a United States Senate seat did not comply with Georgia law. The trial courts entered orders either dismissing the complaints or denying relief. Because the complaints did not name any defendant and because Appellants failed to serve any defendant, the trial courts correctly determined that they had no authority to grant the relief sought. Accordingly, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in all three cases. View "In re: December 6, 2022 General Election Ballot" on Justia Law

In this case concerning various statutory provisions governing the absentee ballot process the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court denying Plaintiff's action pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-328 against the Democratic mayoral candidate for the city of West Haven and certain city election officials challenging the results of the mayoral election, holding that the trial court did not err in denying relief.Plaintiff brought this action arguing that various city election officials failed adequately to comply with the statutory requirements regarding absentee ballots. The trial court denied relief, holding that Plaintiff met his burden of proving that the election officials failed to strictly comply with certain statutory requirements but that the reliability of the election's result was not seriously in doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the reliability of the election's results was seriously in doubt, and therefore, the trial court properly denied Plaintiff's requested relief. View "Cohen v. Rossi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Relators ordering Secretary of State Frank LaRose to remove a proposed constitutional amendment (SJR 2) from the August 8, 2023 special election ballot, holding that Ohio Const. art. XVI, 1 authorizes the General Assembly to prescribe a special election on a specific date by joint resolution.SJR 2 proposed to amend the Ohio Constitution to require a vote of at least sixty percent of Ohio electors to approve any constitutional amendment and to modify the procedures for an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment. The Secretary issued a directive to all county boards of elections instructing them to prepare to hold a special election on August 8. Thereafter, Relators brought this action opposing the constitutional amendment proposed in SJR 2. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the August 8, 2023 special election called in SJR 2 was authorized by Ohio Const. Art. XVI, 1. View "State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose" on Justia Law

In this case, three Latino voters from Franklin County, Washington alleged that the county’s system for electing its board of commissioners violated the Washington voting rights act of 2018 (WVRA) by “dilut[ing] the votes of Latino/a voters.” The plaintiffs (respondents on appeal) ultimately settled with defendants Franklin County and the Franklin County Board of Commissioners. The issues on appeal were raised by James Gimenez, a Franklin County voter who was allowed to intervene by the trial court. Immediately after his motion to intervene was granted, Gimenez moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing and that the WVRA was facially invalid. The trial court denied Gimenez’s motion to dismiss, and he was not an active participant in the case thereafter. After the trial court entered a final order approving the parties’ settlement, Gimenez appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court, arguing that in his view, the WVRA protected some Washington voters but excluded others. Based on this interpretation, Gimenez argued that plaintiffs did not have standing because the WVRA did not protect Latinx voters from Franklin County as a matter of law. Gimenez also argued that the WVRA was repealed by implication and was facially unconstitutional because it required local governments to implement electoral systems that favored protected voters and disfavored others on the basis of race. The Supreme Court disagreed with Gimenez's interpretation of the WVRA, and found plaintiffs had stnging and the WVRA was valid and constitutional on its face. View "Portugal v. Franklin County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ of mandamus challenging the decision of the Ohio General Assembly placing a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special election to be held on August 8, 2023, holding that a writ was warranted in part.In May 2023, the Ohio General Assembly passed a joint resolution to place to placed a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special election. Relators filed this original action against Secretary of State Frank LaRose and the Ohio Ballot Board arguing that the ballot language and title of the proposed amendment were incomplete and misleading. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding that LaRose's use of the word "any" in reference to "constitutional amendment" in the ballot title was likely to mislead voters, and the ballot board shall reconvene to adopt lawful ballot language that accurately characterizes and explains the definition of "electors" in reference to the petition signature requirements in the proposed amendment. View "State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law

This appeal arises from the denial of a motion for a default judgment. End Citizens United (“ECU”) sued the Federal Election Commission alleging the Commission unlawfully dismissed its administrative complaint. Although the Commission failed to enter an appearance or otherwise defend the lawsuit, the district court denied ECU’s motion based on the Commission’s after-the-fact explanation for its dismissal. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by relying on the non-contemporaneous explanation in light of well-established circuit precedent requiring the Commission to provide a timely explanation of its reason for dismissing an administrative complaint.   The DC Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case to it with instructions to return the case to the Commission. The court explained that here the Commission has not defended its decision in court, much less the reasoning in the Dickerson/Cooksey statement. Moreover, the Commission’s composition has apparently changed since its dismissal of ECU’s administrative complaint so that different “agency personnel” would consider the matter on remand. In any event, the Supreme Court has contemplated that “a reviewing court . . . will set aside” Commission action taken contrary to law and “remand the case,” even though the Commission might later “reach the same result exercising its discretionary powers lawfully.” View "End Citizens United PAC v. FEC" on Justia Law