Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Ohio enacted a law to prevent foreign nationals from influencing its elections by banning their political contributions and expenditures. The law defines "foreign nationals" to include lawful permanent residents, unlike the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which exempts them. Plaintiffs, including advocacy organizations and lawful permanent residents, challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing it violated their rights. The district court agreed, finding the law unconstitutional as applied to lawful permanent residents and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Ohio from enforcing the law against all foreign nationals.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the preliminary injunction, reasoning that the law was overbroad and violated the First Amendment rights of lawful permanent residents. The court allowed Ohio to enforce the law against foreign governments and political parties but severed the definition of "foreign national" to exclude lawful permanent residents. Ohio appealed the decision and requested an emergency stay of the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and granted Ohio's motion for a stay. The court found that Ohio was likely to succeed on the merits, concluding that the law was not overbroad and did not violate the First Amendment rights of lawful permanent residents. The court held that Ohio has a compelling interest in preventing foreign influence in its elections, which includes lawful permanent residents. The court also determined that the law was narrowly tailored to serve this interest and was neither overinclusive nor underinclusive. The stay allows Ohio to enforce the law while the appeal is considered. View "OPAWL - Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Yost" on Justia Law

In 2018, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an administrative complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that 45Committee, Inc. violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by not registering as a political committee. After nearly two years of inaction by the FEC, CLC sued the FEC, seeking a declaration that the FEC's failure to act was "contrary to law." The court agreed and ordered the FEC to act within thirty days. When the FEC did not appear to act within that period, the court allowed CLC to bring a citizen suit against 45Committee.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially found that the FEC had failed to act on CLC's complaint and issued a default judgment against the FEC. The court ordered the FEC to act within thirty days, but the FEC did not notify the court or CLC of any action taken. Consequently, the court allowed CLC to bring a citizen suit against 45Committee. However, it later emerged that the FEC had held a reason-to-believe vote within the thirty-day period, which failed to garner the necessary votes to proceed with an investigation or dismiss the complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court was correct in dismissing CLC's citizen suit. The appellate court held that the FEC's holding of a reason-to-believe vote within the thirty-day period constituted conformance with the contrary-to-law determination. Therefore, the preconditions for bringing a citizen suit were not met, as the FEC had taken the required action by holding the vote, even though the vote did not result in a decision to investigate or dismiss the complaint. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the citizen suit. View "Campaign Legal Center v. 45Committee, Inc." on Justia Law

KalshiEx LLC, a regulated commodities exchange, sought to offer "Congressional Control Contracts" allowing individuals to bet on the outcome of the November 2024 congressional elections. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) prohibited these contracts, arguing they constituted gaming or election gambling, which is illegal in many states. Kalshi challenged this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming the CFTC's determination was arbitrary and capricious.The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of Kalshi, finding that the CFTC erred in categorizing the contracts as gaming or gambling. The court vacated the CFTC's decision, reasoning that the term "gaming" did not apply to election contracts and that the contracts did not involve illegal activity under state law. The CFTC then sought a stay of the district court's judgment while it pursued an appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the CFTC's emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. The court denied the motion, concluding that the CFTC failed to demonstrate that it or the public would suffer irreparable harm without a stay. The court noted that the CFTC's concerns about potential harms, such as market manipulation and threats to election integrity, were speculative and not substantiated by concrete evidence. The court left open the possibility for the CFTC to renew its stay request if more concrete evidence of irreparable harm emerged during the appeal. The administrative stay was dissolved. View "KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC" on Justia Law

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Nicole Shanahan submitted nomination papers to the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) to run as independent candidates for President and Vice President in the November 2024 election. On August 23, 2024, Kennedy requested to withdraw his candidacy, but WEC denied his request based on Wisconsin law, which states that a candidate who has filed nomination papers cannot decline the nomination unless they die. Consequently, WEC included Kennedy's name on the certified list of candidates.Kennedy sought judicial review of WEC's decision in the Dane County Circuit Court and filed a motion for a temporary injunction to remove his name from the ballot. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that Kennedy had not demonstrated irreparable harm, that the injunction would alter the status quo, and that he had no reasonable probability of success on the merits. The court also found that Kennedy's constitutional claims lacked legal merit.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court's decision to deny the temporary injunction. The Supreme Court's task was to determine whether the circuit court had properly exercised its discretion. The Supreme Court concluded that Kennedy failed to demonstrate that the circuit court had erred in its decision. Specifically, Kennedy did not adequately argue that the circuit court misinterpreted the relevant statute or that his constitutional claims had merit. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying the temporary injunction. View "Kennedy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

In this case, Georgia voters challenged the qualifications of presidential electors certified by two independent candidates for President, Dr. Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz. The challengers argued that these electors were required to file nomination petitions signed by a number of qualified Georgia voters to have their candidates placed on the ballot. Since none of the electors filed such petitions, the challengers contended that the independent candidates should not appear on the ballot for the November 2024 General Election.The Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially agreed with the challengers, concluding that the electors had not met the qualification requirements under Georgia’s Election Code. However, the Secretary of State overruled the ALJ’s decisions, determining that the electors had qualified under Georgia law. Subsequently, two different superior court judges reversed the Secretary’s decisions, agreeing with the ALJ that the electors had not filed the necessary nomination petitions and thus had not qualified to place their candidates on the ballot.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and held that each presidential elector for an independent candidate is required to file a nomination petition in their own name under OCGA § 21-2-132 (e). The Court found that since no electors for West or De la Cruz had filed such petitions, they had not qualified as candidates for presidential elector. Consequently, the Court affirmed the superior courts' decisions, which concluded that neither West’s nor De la Cruz’s electors satisfied the statutory requirements for their candidates to appear on Georgia’s ballot for President.The Court also addressed procedural issues, including the dismissal of the Georgia Republican Party’s appeal due to lack of party status in the lower court and the denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. The Court affirmed the superior court’s orders regarding the remedies, including the posting of notices at polling places to inform voters of the disqualification of the candidates. View "Al-Bari v. Pigg" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the form and procedural requirements of an initiative petition for Amendment 3, which aims to protect reproductive freedom. The Attorney General and the Secretary of State had approved the form of the petition in March 2023. Proponents of the amendment collected the necessary signatures, and the Secretary of State certified the petition for the 2024 general election ballot. Opponents challenged the certification, claiming the petition failed to include all constitutional provisions and statutes that might be affected if the amendment were approved.The Circuit Court of Cole County ruled in favor of the opponents, finding that the petition did not meet the requirements of article III, section 50 of the Missouri Constitution and section 116.050.2(2). The court ordered the amendment removed from the ballot. Proponents appealed, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri.The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that article III, section 50 requires a petition proposing a constitutional amendment to identify only those existing sections of the constitution that are in direct conflict with the proposed amendment. The court found that Amendment 3 did not purport to repeal any existing constitutional provision and was not in direct conflict with any existing constitutional article or section. The court also rejected the opponents' claim that Amendment 3 violated the "single subject" requirement, finding that all provisions of the amendment related to the single subject of protecting reproductive freedom.The court concluded that the Secretary of State's certification of Amendment 3 was correct and ordered the amendment to be placed on the 2024 general election ballot. View "Coleman v. Ashcroft" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations challenged two Arizona election law amendments: one allowing the cancellation of a voter’s registration if they move to another county (the “Cancellation Provision”) and another making it a felony to provide a voting mechanism to someone registered in another state (the “Felony Provision”). The plaintiffs argued these laws would jeopardize voting rights in Arizona.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of both provisions, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the laws could harm voters and were likely unconstitutional. The defendants, including the Arizona Attorney General and the Yuma County Republican Committee, appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the Cancellation Provision because they only alleged a frustrated mission and diverted resources, failing to show direct harm to their core activities. The court emphasized that organizational standing requires more than just a diversion of resources; it requires a direct impact on the organization’s core activities.Regarding the Felony Provision, the court found that the plaintiffs had standing because they faced a realistic possibility of prosecution, which could chill their voter outreach activities. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their vagueness challenge. The court interpreted the phrase “mechanism for voting” narrowly, determining it referred only to unlawful acts of voting, not voter outreach or registration.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "ARIZONA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS V. MAYES" on Justia Law

The Montana Democratic Party (MDP) sought a writ of supervisory control over the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, after the court dissolved a temporary restraining order and denied MDP’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. MDP aimed to prevent Robert Barb from appearing on the general election ballot as the Montana Green Party’s 2024 U.S. Senate candidate, arguing that the District Court erred in its decision.The First Judicial District Court, presided over by Judge Michael McMahon, had previously denied MDP’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court found that MDP had not followed the statutory process for contesting nominations as outlined in § 13-36-102, MCA. The court concluded that MDP was unlikely to succeed on the merits and thus was not entitled to a preliminary injunction. MDP appealed this decision and simultaneously filed a petition for a writ of supervisory control with the Montana Supreme Court.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that supervisory control was warranted due to the urgency of the upcoming election. However, the court ultimately concluded that the District Court did not err in its ruling, albeit for different reasons. The Supreme Court found that the terms "nomination" and "appointment" are distinct within the context of Montana election law. The court agreed with MDP that the procedure for contesting nominations did not apply to the appointment of a replacement candidate under § 13-10-327, MCA. However, the court also found that MDP failed to demonstrate that the Green Party violated its bylaws in appointing Barb, and thus, MDP was unlikely to succeed on the merits.The Montana Supreme Court denied MDP’s petition for a writ of supervisory control, affirming the lower court’s decision to allow Barb to appear on the ballot. View "Montana Democratic Party v. First Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Catoosa County Republican Party (CCRP) and its executive officers attempted to prevent certain candidates from qualifying for the May 2024 Republican primary for county commission seats, citing a statute that mandates candidates follow their party's procedural rules. The CCRP's local rules required candidates to be pre-approved by the County Committee and present a notarized affidavit at the time of qualifying. On March 4, 2024, four candidates filed petitions against the CCRP Defendants, alleging they were denied the right to qualify despite meeting statutory requirements. They sought temporary restraining orders and injunctions to prevent the CCRP from blocking their qualifications.The trial court issued temporary restraining orders on March 5, 2024, and later denied the CCRP Defendants' motions to lift the orders and dismiss the petitions. The court ruled that the CCRP's rules were not enforceable and ordered that the candidates be allowed to qualify. The CCRP Defendants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia, recognizing it had jurisdiction over election contests.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that parties seeking to challenge election results must act with urgency and exhaust all avenues to resolve disputes before the election. The CCRP Defendants failed to expedite their appeal and even requested delays. The court reiterated its long-standing precedent that it will not review challenges to candidate qualifications once the election has occurred, especially when the challenging party has not acted promptly. The court's decision underscores the importance of finality in election results and the need for challengers to litigate their claims with dispatch. View "CATOOSA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY v. HENRY" on Justia Law

Jamie Walsh and Mike Cabell competed in the April 23, 2024, primary election for the Republican nomination to represent the 117th District in Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives. Several provisional ballots were returned, and Walsh led Cabell by three votes before counting them. The Luzerne County Board of Elections held hearings to review the provisional ballots. Cabell challenged a ballot submitted by Timothy Wagner because the envelope was unsigned, and Walsh challenged a ballot submitted by Shane O’Donnell, who was registered to vote in a different county. The Board decided to count Wagner’s ballot but not O’Donnell’s.Cabell appealed to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, which held a hearing where Wagner and O’Donnell testified. Wagner could not remember if he signed the envelope, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision to count his ballot due to no evidence of fraud and clear intent to vote. O’Donnell testified he moved to a new home less than 30 days before the election, and the court affirmed the Board’s decision not to count his vote, as he could have voted in his new district.The Commonwealth Court reversed both rulings. It held that Wagner’s unsigned ballot should not be counted based on the Election Code’s clear language. It also held that O’Donnell’s ballot should be counted because he moved within 30 days before the election, allowing him to vote in his old district.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decision. It held that Wagner’s unsigned ballot should not be counted due to the clear statutory requirement for a signature. It also held that O’Donnell’s ballot should be counted because he moved within 30 days before the election, allowing him to vote in his previous district. View "IN RE: CANVASS OF PROVISIONAL BALLOTS IN THE 2024 PRIMARY ELECTION" on Justia Law