Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Jared Hendrix, as chairman of the North Dakota for Term Limits Sponsoring Committee, and North Dakota for Term Limits (collectively, “Petitioners” or “Committee”) petitioned for a writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary of State to place the Term Limits Initiative on the November 8, 2022, general election ballot. The Secretary of State rejected 29,101 signatures on circulated petitions and concluded the initiative did not qualify for placement on the ballot. The Petitioners argued the Secretary of State improperly invalidated signatures on the basis of a finding of notary fraud relating to two circulators, a pattern of notary fraud relating to one notary, violation of the pay-per-signature ban, and other issues. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the Secretary of State misapplied the law by excluding signatures on the basis of a determination that a pattern of likely notary violations on some petitions permitted his invalidation of all signatures on all petitions that were sworn before the same notary. Because adding the signatures invalidated for imputed fraud to the 17,265 other signatures accepted by the Secretary of State places the initiative over the constitutional requirement of 31,164, the Supreme Court granted the Committee’s petition and issued a writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary of State to place the Term Limits Initiative on the November 8, 2022, ballot. View "Hendrix, et al. v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this matter that was submitted as a letter and construed as an election contest complaint, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.Plaintiff Ralph Cushnie and a group of thirty voters brought his action asserting that two audits were performed for the 2022 Primary Election that did not satisfy the requirements of Haw. Rev. Stat. 16-42 and requesting that the certification of the 2022 Primary Election be halted until a manual recount could be conducted. Defendant State of Hawaii - Chief Election Officer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs' requested remedy was not a remedy authorized by Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b). View "Cushnie v. State, Chief Election Officer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this election complaint brought by Plaintiff Jay Dee Penn, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Plaintiff brought this complaint asserting inaccurate reporting violations of law relating to election fraud, ballot irregularities, inadequate ballot security and voter discrimination and suppression. As relief, Plaintiff requested, among other things, that all 2022 primary election ballots be preserved for almost two years for further review and delaying the certification of the 2022 primary election until a statewide audit and recount could take place. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that the remedies sought by Plaintiff were not authorized by Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b). View "Penn v. State, Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's election complaint seeking a manual recount of the ballots cast in the 2022 Republican Primary Election for the House District 45 seat and an order requiring certain requests to be granted, holding that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.Plaintiff Carlotta Oquendo, one of the three Primary Election Republican Party candidates in the House District 45 race, filed a complaint requesting that an order be issued requiring a manual recount of the race and an order requiring certain requests be granted to restore public confidence in the integrity of Hawaii elections. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiff's requests were not authorized by Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b). View "Oquendo v. State, Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a limited writ of mandamus ordering the City of Twinburg, City Clerk of Council Shannon Collins, and Law Director Matt Vazzana (collectively, the City) to transmit a referendum petition to the Summit County Board of Elections, holding that Collins had a ministerial duty to transmit the petition to the Board.At issue was Resolution No. 57-2022, a resolution to confirm the Twinsburg Planning Commission's approval of a final site plan for a proposed development. Clark and three other petitioners filed a referendum petition seeking to place the resolution on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot. After she was advised that the resolution was not subject to referendum, Lynn Clark brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the City to transmit the referendum petition to the Board. The Supreme Court granted a limited writ, holding that it was not necessary to address whether Resolution No. 57-2022 was subject to referendum because Clark established a right to the requested relief, and Collins had a duty to provide it. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Twinsburg" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' exceptions to the special magistrate's recommendation that their challenges to the most recent districting plan adopted by the General Assembly be rejected, holding that Petitioners' evidence fell short of the proof needed to establish the unconstitutionality of a redistricting plan.Early in 2022, the General Assembly adopted a new plan for State legislative districts. After four separate petitions were filed challenging the validity of that plan, a special magistrate enlisted by the Court conducted hearing and recommended that the challenges be rejected. The Court of Appeals denied the petitions, holding that Petitioners did not rebut the presumption of validity applied the legislative redistricting. View "In re 2022 Legislative Districting" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court that the Senate disclose all communications concerning an audit to American Oversight, holding that communications concerning legislative activities need not relate to proposed or pending legislation nor require an affirmative showing of indirect impairment of legislative deliberations to qualify for legislative privilege.At issue in this case was the scope and application of legislative privilege pursuant to the "Gravel/Fields framework" under the Arizona Constitution and common law. In 2020, Senate members contracted to conduct an audit of ballots cast in Maricopa County. American Oversight, a nonprofit organization, filed a complaint under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 39-121 to compel disclosure of the documents. The trial court rejected the Senate's immunity claim and ordered it to disclose the documents. When the Senate submitted a privilege log listing several withheld and redacted communications along with the requested documents American Oversight moved to compel the Senate to produce the withheld records. The trial court rejected the Senate's legislative privilege claim and granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Gravel/Fields framework requires that the Senate only disclose communications concerning administrative, political, or other non-legislative matters. View "Fann v. Honorable Kemp" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, an individual and a registered Nebraska ballot campaign committee, challenged as contrary to the Equal Protection Clause a provision in the Nebraska constitution that establishes a signature requirement for ballot initiatives. The district court entered a preliminary injunction barring the Nebraska Secretary of State from enforcing the provision. The Secretary appealed.   The Eighth Circuit reversed explaining that because the signature distribution requirement “does not draw a suspect classification or restrict a fundamental right,” Plaintiffs must show that it cannot survive even rational-basis scrutiny. The court explained that Plaintiffs have not shown even a “fair chance” of carrying this burden. The Secretary identifies multiple legitimate government interests served by the signature distribution requirement.  A lawmaker could rationally conclude that the signature distribution requirement furthers this interest by weeding out initiatives with a small but concentrated support base.   The court explained that it need not decide here whether to extend this principle to requests for injunctions against the enforcement of state constitutional provisions because the balance of the remaining preliminary injunction factors weighs in the Secretary’s favor anyway. Thus, on balance, the preliminary-injunction factors clearly weigh in the Secretary’s favor. The district court abused its discretion by granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction View "Crista Eggers v. Robert Evnen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court entered judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Commonwealth on all claims in Plaintiffs' complaint raising facial constitutional challenges to various aspects of the "Act fostering voter opportunities, trust, equity and security" (VOTES Act), including claims that universal early voting provisions were facially unconstitutional, and denied Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, holding that there was no merit to Plaintiffs' claims.The VOTES Act, which was passed by the legislature on June 16, 2022 and approved by the Governor six days later, provided that any qualified voter in Massachusetts can vote early, in person or by mail, in primaries and biennial State elections. Plaintiffs, all associated with the Massachusetts Republican Party, brought this action challenging the VOTES Act, specifically the Act's requirement that the Secretary mail applications for early voting ballots to all registered voters by July 23, 2022. The court entered judgment for the Secretary on all claims, arguing that Plaintiffs' claim that the universal early voting provisions were facially unconstitutional was without merit and that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their remaining claims. View "Lyons v. Secretary of Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' election contest complaint seeking nullification of the 2022 primary election results, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Plaintiffs Gary Cordery and a group of thirty registered voters brought this election contest complaint alleging inconsistencies, errors and mistakes in the voting process during the 2022 Primary Election. As relief, Plaintiffs requested nullification of the 2022 primary election results and directions that all qualified candidates advance to the General Election. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the remedies sought by Plaintiffs were not statutorily authorized, and therefore, Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim. View "Cordery v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law