Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Brandon L. King, mayor of East Cleveland, to compel the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections to remove a recall election against King from the November 8, 2022 ballot, holding that King failed to establish that he was entitled to the writ.Charles Holmes delivered an affidavit to the clerk of the East Cleveland city council seeking to recall King from office. The clerk issued blank recall petitions to Holmes, who returned with part-partitions. The clerk concluded that the petition contained enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, and the Board ordered a recall election to appeal on the November 2022 general election ballot. Holmes subsequently brought a complaint for a writ of mandamus. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court denied Darryl Moore's motion for leave to intervene and denied the writ of mandamus, holding (1) Moore was not entitled to intervene; and (2) the Board had no authority under the City of East Cleveland charter to decertify the King recall petition. View "State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering Respondent Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose to place Relator Tanya Conrath's name on the ballot as the replacement Democratic Party candidate for the state-representative seat in the November 2022 state election, holding that Conrath established that she was entitled to the writ.The Democratic Party candidate for the state-representative seat in the 2022 primary election for state representative of Ohio House District 94 gave notice of his withdrawal from the race after the primary election was held but before the official result of the primary election had been certified. Thereafter, a district committee chose Conrath to be the Democratic party's replacement nominee, and Conrath accepted the nomination. Secretary LaRose, however, concluded that the district committee had lacked authority to select a replacement nominee because Conrath was not a "party candidate." The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus, holding that Conrath had a clear legal right to have her name placed on the ballot and that Respondents had a clear legal duty to place Conrath's name on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Conrath v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court approved a plan proposed by Petitioner to correct an error on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot in this petition brought by the Ramsey County Elections Manager under Minn. Stat. 204B.44(a) with minor modifications.Due to a clerical error, Ramsey County ballots incorrectly listed Beverly Peterson, and not Scott Hesselgrave, as the Republican Party candidate for Minnesota House District 67A. Petitioner sought an order authorizing correction of the ballot for House District 67A, distribution of the corrected ballot, and procedures for counting these voters' ballots. The Supreme Court held that it was authorized to correct the ballot error and the Petitioner proposed an appropriate plan to remedy the error. View "In re 2022 General Election Ballot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the orders of the circuit court granting motions to dismiss filed by the Lonoke County Board of Election Commissioners, individual Board members, and the Secretary of State, holding that the dismissal orders are modified to reflect that the dismissals are without prejudice.Plaintiff, who sought to run as an independent candidate in the 2022 election for Lonoke County Judge, brought this action seeking a declaration that the actions of the Clerk's office violated his right to access to the ballot and the right of the voters to cast ballots for independent candidates and adding challenges to the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. 7-7-103. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint but that the dismissal should have been without prejudice. View "Blackburn v. Lonoke County Bd. of Election Commissioners" on Justia Law

After the representative from Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District was appointed to serve as a cabinet secretary, the State held an out-of-cycle election to fill the seat. Plaintiffs, The Coalition for Good Governance did not trust the results. It organized several lawsuits targeting Georgia elections, including the one here: an action contending that the “precise outcome” of the runoff for the Sixth District seat was unknowable because the State’s electronic voting system was vulnerable to hacking. The Coalition (along with several individual plaintiffs) asked for a declaration that the runoff election was void and for an injunction against the system’s future use. Georgia began using new machines allowing voters to select their choices electronically.   Plaintiffs amended their complaint and moved to enjoin the use of the new election equipment. The district court entered its partial relief, and the Eleventh Circuit stayed the district court’s judgment. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction on the state’s paper backup check-in list, as well as its related directives on provisional and emergency ballots, and dismissed the appeal with respect to the scanner order.   The court explained that the Coalition has not demonstrated a severe burden on the right to vote attributable to the State’s print date for the paper backup. The district court erred in treating that print date as such and abused its discretion when it reviewed the State’s backup practices under strict scrutiny. The court wrote that federal courts must resist the temptation to step into the role of elected representatives. View "Donna Curling, et al. v. Brad Raffensperger, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied this petition asking that the Court order removal of Torrey Westrom from the November 8, 2022 general election ballot as a candidate for Senate District 12, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner alleged that Westrom, the current state senator for District 12, was not eligible for reelection to that office because he could satisfy the residency requirement of the Minnesota Constitution. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that Westrom will not have resided in Senate District 12 for the required six-month period prior to the general election. A referee concluded that Petitioners failed to prove that Westrom was ineligible to run for state legislative office in District 12 in the November general election. The Supreme Court denied the petition and granted the Attorney General's request to be dismissed from the matter, holding that Petitioners' objections failed. View "Fischer v. Simon" on Justia Law

This case was a dispute over who could run for Chief Magistrate Judge of Douglas County, Georgia in the November 2022 election. After the incumbent successfully challenged the qualifications of the only person who qualified to run for the Democratic nomination, the Douglas County Democratic Party Executive Committee purported to name a replacement. That led to another challenge, this one by the incumbent’s husband (a registered voter eligible to vote in the election), contending that the substitution was improper. The superior court agreed that the Douglas County Board of Elections and Registration (the “Board”) was not legally authorized to allow the substitution, but ruled that the statutory vehicle through which the challenge was asserted — OCGA § 21-2-6 — covered only challenges to a candidate’s qualifications to hold office, not whether the candidate fulfilled the necessary prerequisites to seek office. The Georgia Supreme Court granted an application for expedited consideration in the light of the rapidly approaching election, and reversed. "Code section 21-2-6 allows the challenge here because 'qualifications,' as that term is used in the statute, includes all of the prerequisites for seeking and holding office. The substitute candidate did not properly qualify to seek office, so the Board lacked authority to put him on the ballot. And because electors have an interest in having the community’s government offices filled by duly qualified officials, the Board’s decision allowing an unqualified candidate on the ballot violated a substantial right of an elector." View "Camp v. Williams, et al." on Justia Law

NJBA, a non-profit trade association representing 88 New Jersey banks, sought to make independent expenditures and contributions to political parties and campaigns for state and local offices. NJBA has not made these payments because of N.J. Stats. 19:34-45, which provides that, “[n]o corporation carrying on the business of a bank . . . shall pay or contribute money or thing of value in order to aid or promote the nomination or election of any person, or in order to aid or promote the interests, success or defeat of any political party.” NJBA brought a facial challenge on its own behalf and on behalf of third-party banks.The district court held that section 19:34-45’s prohibition on independent expenditures violates the First Amendment but that the ban on political contributions by certain corporations does not violate the First Amendment and passes intermediate scrutiny. The Third Circuit reversed, declining to address the First Amendment issues. The statute does not apply to trade associations of banks. NJBA is not “carrying on the business of a bank.” With respect to the facial challenge, NJBA does not satisfy the narrow exception to the general rule against third-party standing. View "New Jersey Bankers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a limited writ sought by Relators - Sanduskians for Sandusky and Craig McCloskey II - ordering Respondents - the City of Sandusky and city commission members - to enact an ordinance providing for submission of a proposed charter amendment to Sandusky's electors, holding that Relators were entitled to a limited writ.Relators requested a writ of mandamus ordering Respondents to certify a charter amendment petition for a vote by Sandusky's electors at the November 8, 2022 general election and further sought a writ of mandamus ordering Erie County Board of Elections to place the proposed charter amendment on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot. The Supreme Court granted a limited writ ordering the enactment of an ordinance providing for submission of the proposed amendment at a special election to take place within certain time parameters and conditioned the writ on the Erie County Board of Elections certifying that the charter-amendment petition contained sufficient valid signatures to qualify for submission to the electors, holding that Ohio Rev. Code 731.31 did not apply to Relators' petition to amend Section 25 of the Sandusky Charter. View "State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. City of Sandusky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a petition sought by Petitioners to vacate the determination of the State Board of Election Commissioners and the Secretary of State not to certify the ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing the adult possession and use of cannabis, holding that Petitioners were entitled to relief.After the Board declined to certify the popular name and ballot title of the proposed amendment Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to order the Secretary of State to certify the proposed amendment for inclusion on the ballot at the November 8, 2022 general election. The Secretary of State declared the proposed measure insufficient. The Supreme Court granted Petitioners' petition and ordered the Secretary of State to certify the proposed amendment for inclusion on the November 2022 general election ballot, holding that the ballot title was not insufficient or misleading. View "Armstrong v. Thurston" on Justia Law