Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court ordered the General Assembly to pass a new congressional-district plan that complied with the Ohio Constitution, holding that the plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on March 2, 2022 unduly favored the Republican Party and disfavored the Democratic Party in violation of Ohio Const. art. XIX, 1(C)(3)(a).On January 14, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the congressional-district plan passed by the General Assembly was invalid in its entirety and directed the General Assembly to adopt a new plan that complied with Article XIX. After the redistricting commission adopted the March 2 plan, Petitioners filed original actions challenging the plan. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the March 2 plan did not comply with Article XIX, section 1(C)(3)(a) of the Ohio Constitution and was therefore invalid. View "Santomauro v. McLaughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the claims brought by Erik Jones in this expedited election case, holding that Jones was not entitled to a writ of mandamus based on the doctrine of laches.Jones filed a declaration of candidacy and petition to appear on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot as a candidate for the Republican Party State Central Committee, but the Lorain County Board of Elections did not certify his name to the ballot based on the instructions in Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose's Directive 2022-34 to reject declarations and petitions filed after February 2, 2022 by state-central-committee-member candidates. Jones subsequently sought a writ of mandamus compelling LaRose to instruct the county boards of elections to accept declarations of candidacy filed before May 4, 2022. The Supreme Court denied the claims, holding that Jones's unreasonable delay in bringing this lawsuit resulted in prejudice to the Board in its administration of the election. View "State ex rel. Jones v. LaRose" on Justia Law

Frederick Burkes, Sr. appealed a circuit court judgment entered in favor of James Franklin in an action initiated by Burkes. In March 2020, Burkes defeated Franklin, the incumbent, in a primary election for the office of constable for District 59 in Jefferson County, Alabama. Burkes was unopposed in the general election and was declared and certified as the winner of the election on Friday, November 13, 2020. Thereafter, Franklin sent a letter to the Jefferson Probate Court informing the probate court that Burkes had not filed an official bond within 40 days of the declaration of Burkes's election to the office of constable. The probate court notified the Governor that the bond had not been posted, making the office vacated by operation of law. The Governor thereafter appointed Franklin to the office of constable for District 59. On April 22, 2021, Burkes, acting pro se, initiated this action, which he identified as a quo warranto action, with the circuit court. Burkes alleged in his complaint that he had been sworn into the office of constable on January 4, 2021, and that he had filed an official bond on December 31, 2020, which he contended was timely pursuant to § 36-23- 4, Ala. Code 1975. Also acting pro se, Franklin filed an "answer" in which he also moved for a "summary judgment." In summary, Franklin asserted that Burkes had vacated the office of constable by failing to comply with the pertinent statutory procedure concerning the payment of official bonds. Franklin requested, among other things, that Burkes be ordered to cease and desist all activities concerning the office of constable and that Burkes's quo warranto action be "dismissed with prejudice." The Alabama Supreme Court found that Burkes's failure to give the circuit court security for the costs of this action deprived the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Because the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, its judgment was void. Because a void judgment will not support an appeal, this appeal was dismissed. View "Burkes v. Franklin" on Justia Law

In this case concerning two documents created by employees of the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) that authorized municipal clerks and local election officials to establish ballot drop boxes the Supreme Court held that the documents were invalid because ballot drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin statutes.Two Wisconsin voters brought this action challenging the validity of the documents, arguing, among other things, that, under Wisconsin statutes, drop boxes are illegal. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an absentee ballot must be returned by mail or the voter must personally deliver it to the municipal clerk at the clerk's officer or a designated alternate site, not an inanimate object; and (2) therefore, the documents were invalid. View "Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

In this lawsuit challenging both the residency and voter-registration requirements under Maine law the First Circuit affirmed the order issuing a preliminary injunction preventing the residency requirement and voter-registration requirement from being enforced, holding that there was no error.In 2020, Plaintiffs brought this action against the Secretary of State of Maine and the Deputy Secretary of State of Maine for the Bureau of Corporations in their official capacities, alleging that, by restricting who may be a circulator, Maine's residency and voter-registration requirements violate the First Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs established that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. View "We The People PAC v. Bellows" on Justia Law

In November 2017, Michele Yamakaitis, the nominee of the Democratic Party, was re-elected to a three-year term as the councilmember representing the 8th Ward to the City of Linden Municipal Council (City Council). One year later, Yamakaitis was elected council president, and she resigned as councilmember to assume her new role. On the day of her resignation, the Linden city clerk forwarded a letter to Nicholas Scutari, Chairman of the Linden Democratic Committee, alerting him to the process for filling the 8th Ward vacancy. Chairman Scutari advised the city clerk that the Democratic Committee had met and selected three candidates, including Paul Coates, Jr., to fill the vacant seat. The City Council rejected all three candidates submitted by the Linden Democratic Committee and adopted a Resolution to leave the 8th Ward seat vacant until the next general election, a position the mayor supported. The Democratic Committee voted and swore in Coates to serve as the councilmember representing the 8th Ward, citing N.J.S.A. 40A:16-11 as the authority for that action. The City Council then exercised “[its] right under [N.J.S.A. 40A:16-5(b)] to maintain a vacancy in the 8th Ward,” and declined to recognize Coates as councilmember. In February 2019, Coates and the Democratic Committee filed suit alleging that defendants -- the City and City Council -- had violated the Municipal Vacancy Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:16-1 to -23, by refusing to seat Coates as councilmember. The Chancery Court agreed and voided the Resolution to keep the seat vacant and directed that Coates be seated as the 8th Ward councilmember. Defendants appealed, challenging the court’s findings under both the Vacancy Law, and Coates and the Democratic Committee cross-appealed to uphold the Chancery Court's decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Chancery Division’s orders, determining that the City Council had the authority under N.J.S.A. 40A:16-5 to decline to fill the vacancy. The New Jersey Supreme Court found that in amending in 1990 Sections 11 and 13 of the Municipal Vacancy Law, the Legislature removed the governing body’s discretion to keep vacant a seat previously occupied by a nominee of a political party. "Section 11 mandates that the governing body choose one of the municipal committee’s three nominees." View "Linden Democratic Committee v. City of Linden " on Justia Law

Texas applicants may transmit a voter registration form to the county registrar via fax, then deliver or mail a hardcopy of the application within four days, Elec.Code 13.143(d-2). Vote.org, a non-profit, non-membership organization, launched a web application, with which a user would supply the required information and an electronic image of her signature. The application would assemble a completed voter registration application, then transmit it to a third-party vendor, who would transmit the form via fax to the county registrar; another vendor would mail a hardcopy to the registrar. A 2018 pilot program in four counties “was an unmitigated disaster. Because applications submitted using the web application lacked an original, “wet” signature, the Secretary of State advised that those applications were incomplete. In 2021, House Bill 3107 clarified that for “a registration application submitted by [fax] to be effective, a copy of the original registration application containing the voter’s original signature must be submitted by personal delivery or mail” within four days.The district court concluded that the wet-signature requirement violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 52 U.S.C. 10101(a)(2)(B), because an original signature is “not material” to an individual’s qualification to vote and granted a permanent injunction. The Fifth Circuit granted a stay pending appeal, concluding that Vote.org lacks statutory standing and is unlikely to prevail on the merits. The wet-signature rule imposes a very slight burden on the right to vote and helps deter voter registration fraud. View "Vote.Org v. Paxton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court rejecting Appellant's complaint challenging an initiative petition that would, if approved by voters, add two sections to Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution, holding that the district court properly denied relief.The initiative petition proposed two changes - open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections for specified officeholders. The district court rejected Appellant's complaint challenging the initiative petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even though the initiative petition proposed more than one change to Nevada law, it still met the single-subject requirement; (2) the initiative petition's description of effect was not misleading or inadequate; and (3) Appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposal required the expenditure of money without providing a funding source. View "Helton v. Nevada Voters First PAC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court order granting writs of mandamus and prohibition barring the Secretary of State from placing initiative petition questions on the ballot, holding that the district court abused its discretion in issuing a writ of prohibition.When Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske refused to honor the withdrawals of two verified initiative petitions to place questions on the ballot for the Nevada 2022 general election the sponsors of those petitions obtained writs of mandamus and prohibition to compel the Secretary to recognize to honor the withdrawals. The Secretary appealed, contending that Nev. Rev. Stat. 295.026, the statute setting forth the withdrawal procedure, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 295.026 is a permissible exercise of the legislature's power to enact statutes to facilities the people's initiative power; (2) the district court did not abuse it discretion in issuing a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary not to act; and (3) the district court improperly issued a writ of prohibition because the act of placing matters on a ballot is not the type of action subject to prohibition. View "Cegavske v. Hollowood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court enjoining Education Freedom PAC (EFP) from circulating an initiative petition for signatures and enjoining the Secretary of State from including the initiative on the ballot, holding that the initiative fell short of meeting constitutional requirements.The initiative at issue would amend the Nevada Constitution to require the legislature to establish education freedom accounts for parents to use to pay for their child's education if that child is educated outside of the uniform system of common schools. Respondents filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the petition. The district court concluded that the initiative was invalid for three reasons. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly denied EFP's request to dismiss the complaint; and (2) properly enjoined the EFP initiative's circulation and placement on the ballot because the initiative failed to comply with constitutional requirements. View "Education Freedom PAC v. Reid" on Justia Law