Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Two electors, Faith Genser and Frank Matis, submitted mail-in ballots for the 2024 Primary Election without the required Secrecy Envelopes. The Butler County Board of Elections identified the defect and notified the electors that their mail-in ballots would not be counted. The electors then cast provisional ballots on Election Day. The Board did not count these provisional ballots, leading the electors to file a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County.The trial court dismissed the petition, upholding the Board's decision. It concluded that the Election Code did not support counting provisional ballots when a defective mail-in ballot had been submitted. The court emphasized that the Election Code's requirements for mail-in ballots were mandatory and that the Board's role was to ensure compliance with these requirements during canvassing.The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the electors' provisional ballots should be counted. It found ambiguity in the Election Code's language regarding when a ballot is considered "cast" or "voted." The court interpreted the provisions to mean that a ballot must be valid and counted to preclude the counting of a provisional ballot. It concluded that the General Assembly intended to allow voters to remedy their circumstances when their initial mail-in ballot was invalid or incomplete.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court's decision. It held that the Election Code required the Board to count the electors' provisional ballots because their mail-in ballots were void due to the lack of Secrecy Envelopes. The Court emphasized that a void ballot has no legal effect and that the Election Code's provisions aim to prevent double voting while ensuring that every qualified voter has the opportunity to cast a vote. View "Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves two competing slates of candidates seeking to appear on the ballot for the March 5, 2024, primary election for the Democratic Town Committee for the seventh district of Hartford. The plaintiffs, members of one slate, challenged the validity of a petition sheet submitted by the defendants, members of the other slate, on the grounds that one signature was not signed by the named individual but by his son under a purported power of attorney. The defendants counterclaimed, arguing that five petition sheets submitted by the plaintiffs should be invalidated for not including a written tally of the number of verified signatures as required by statute.The Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford found that the signature in question on the defendants' petition sheet was invalid because there was no evidence that the son had a valid power of attorney or that it included the authority to sign political petitions. Consequently, the court rejected the entire petition sheet, reducing the defendants' valid signatures below the required threshold, and ordered their removal from the ballot. The court also found that one of the plaintiffs' petition sheets contained a forged signature and rejected it, but it ruled that the other five challenged sheets substantially complied with the statutory requirements despite lacking the signature tally.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the trial court that the signature on the defendants' petition sheet was invalid and that the entire sheet must be rejected. The court held that the statutory language was clear in requiring the rejection of any petition page with procedural violations, including false attestations. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of substantial compliance for the plaintiffs' five petition sheets lacking the required tally. The court held that these sheets must also be rejected, which would reduce the plaintiffs' valid signatures below the required threshold, disqualifying both slates from the primary ballot.The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with the case remanded for further proceedings to determine the conduct of the primary election with both slates disqualified. View "Airey v. Feliciano" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Bill Paschall and Arkansans for Patient Access (APA), sought a declaration from the court that the ballot title for the proposed "Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2024" was sufficient and requested that votes for the amendment be counted in the November 5, 2024, general election. The proposed amendment aimed to expand access to medical marijuana and included provisions for legalizing marijuana possession for all purposes if federal law changes. The Secretary of State, John Thurston, and intervenors, Jim Bell and Protect Arkansas Kids (PAK), opposed the petition, arguing that the proposal was insufficient due to misleading language and failure to meet signature requirements.The Secretary of State rejected APA's petition on the grounds that APA did not meet the 90,704 minimum-signature requirement, as affidavits were signed by individuals from Nationwide Ballot Initiative (NBA) rather than APA. PAK argued that the popular name and ballot title were misleading, as they did not inform voters about the amendment's broader implications, including the legalization of recreational marijuana and changes to the Arkansas Constitution unrelated to medical marijuana.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and found that the Secretary of State erred in rejecting the petition based on the signature requirement, as APA's delegation to NBA was permissible under Arkansas law. However, the court agreed with PAK that the popular name and ballot title were misleading. The court held that the proposed amendment's popular name suggested it was limited to medical marijuana, while it also sought to legalize recreational marijuana and amend unrelated constitutional provisions. The ballot title failed to adequately inform voters about these significant changes.The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied the petitioners' request, granted the intervenors' request for relief, and enjoined the Secretary of State from canvassing or certifying any ballots cast for the proposed amendment in the November 5, 2024, general election. View "PASCHALL V. THURSTON" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellants, members of the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners, appealed a decision by the Crittenden County Circuit Court. The appellees, Shirley Brown and Lavonda Taylor, filed a petition seeking to compel the Board to conduct early voting at specific locations for the 2024 General Election. The Board had failed to unanimously approve an early voting site in West Memphis, leading the County Clerk, Paula Brown, to designate the Seventh Street Church of Christ as an early voting site. The appellees also sought to maintain the First Baptist Church as an early voting site, as it had been used in the 2022 General Election.The Crittenden County Circuit Court partially granted the appellees' petition, ordering the Board to conduct early voting at the Church of Christ but denied the request to include the First Baptist Church. The court found that the County Clerk had the authority under Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-418(a)(1)(A) to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it ruled that the statute requiring polling sites to remain the same as the previous general election did not apply to early voting sites.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision with modifications. The Supreme Court agreed that the County Clerk had the authority to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it modified the writ of mandamus to clarify that the Board must only comply with its statutory duties regarding early voting conducted by the County Clerk. On cross-appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the First Baptist Church must remain an early voting site for the 2024 General Election, as the Board had not voted to change it from the 2022 General Election. View "Barton v. Brown" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition filed by Jennifer McGill and Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC (CNE) seeking to invalidate a proposed constitutional amendment concerning the Pope County casino license. The petitioners argued that the Arkansas Secretary of State, John Thurston, improperly certified the proposed amendment. They claimed that the number of valid signatures was insufficient and that the popular name and ballot title were misleading. Local Voters in Charge (LVC) and Jim Knight intervened in the case, supporting the proposed amendment.Previously, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted expedited consideration of the petition and allowed the intervention. The court bifurcated the proceedings into two counts: the sufficiency of the signatures and the sufficiency of the popular name and ballot title. A Special Master was appointed to resolve factual disputes regarding the signatures, which were addressed in a separate opinion. This opinion focuses on the challenges to the popular name and ballot title.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the popular name and ballot title certified by the Attorney General. The court held that the popular name and ballot title were sufficient and not misleading. The court found that the ballot title adequately informed voters that any existing casino license in Pope County would be revoked if the amendment passed. The court also rejected arguments that the popular name and ballot title failed to disclose conflicts with federal law or that they misled voters about the amendment's impact on future constitutional amendments.Ultimately, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied the petition, allowing the proposed amendment to remain on the ballot for the November 5, 2024, general election. The court issued its mandate immediately. View "MCGILL V. THURSTON" on Justia Law

This case involves five initiatives submitted to the Washington State legislature in 2024. The Secretary of State reviewed the signatures on the petitions for these initiatives and determined that there were enough valid signatures to certify them. The initiatives included measures on parental rights in education, repealing the state’s capital gains tax, forbidding state and local income taxes, prohibiting carbon tax credit trading, and making participation in the state’s long-term care insurance program optional. Defend Washington, along with Susan Young and Sharon Chen, challenged the adequacy of the Secretary’s review, arguing that it did not ensure the signers were legal voters.The trial court found that the Secretary’s review was adequate and dismissed the challenge. The court ruled that the Secretary’s use of statistical sampling techniques to verify signatures was consistent with state regulations and that checking signers’ addresses was not required. The Secretary had already submitted the initiatives to the legislature, which passed two of them and left the remaining three to be decided by voters in the upcoming general election.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the Secretary’s procedure of validating signatures by matching them with voter rolls did not violate RCW 29A.72.230, which requires verification of legal voters’ names on the petition. The court found no statutory requirement to verify addresses and concluded that the Secretary’s actions were consistent with the law. The court also noted that any further requirements for signature verification procedures would need to be established by the legislature or the Secretary through rulemaking. The superior court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Defend Washington v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Bryan Norris submitted a countywide ballot initiative in Independence County, Arkansas, proposing that all elections be conducted using paper ballots. The County Clerk, Tracey Mitchell, rejected the initiative, claiming the ballot title was misleading. Norris then filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief in the Independence County Circuit Court, challenging Mitchell's decision. The circuit court found the ballot title and popular name legally sufficient, granted the writ of mandamus, and directed Mitchell to certify the ballot initiative. Mitchell was also enjoined from rejecting the measure.Mitchell appealed the circuit court's decision, arguing that the ballot title was insufficient because it omitted and misstated material information, potentially leading voters to enact an ordinance conflicting with Arkansas law. Specifically, she contended that the ballot title failed to disclose that the proposed ordinance conflicted with state statutes requiring the use of tabulation devices for paper ballots and did not inform voters about the existing legal methods for casting and counting votes.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case, noting that the sufficiency of a ballot title is a matter of law. The court emphasized that a ballot title must provide an impartial summary of the proposed amendment, giving voters a fair understanding of the issues and the scope of the proposed changes. The court found that the ballot title did not need to include every possible consequence or legal argument and that Mitchell's concerns were speculative. The court concluded that Mitchell did not meet her burden of proving the ballot title was insufficient and affirmed the circuit court's order directing Mitchell to certify the measure as sufficient to the county election board. The decision was affirmed, and the mandate was issued immediately. View "MITCHELL V. NORRIS" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of relators seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Lorain County Board of Elections to place a zoning-amendment referendum on the November 5, 2024, general-election ballot. The relators had filed a referendum petition against a municipal ordinance that rezoned approximately 300 acres of property. However, the Board of Elections sustained a protest by intervening respondents, DBR Commercial Realty, L.L.C., and Kathryn Craig, and removed the referendum from the ballot, arguing that the relators failed to file a complete certified copy of the ordinance as required by R.C. 731.32.The relators initially received what they claimed were incomplete copies of the ordinance from the clerk of the Vermilion City Council. Despite knowing the copies were incomplete, they attempted to correct the deficiencies themselves by adding missing pages from the county recorder’s office. However, the copy they filed with the finance director was still missing two pages. The Board of Elections held a protest hearing and concluded that the relators did not strictly comply with R.C. 731.32, which requires a complete certified copy of the ordinance to be filed before circulating a referendum petition.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and upheld the Board of Elections' decision. The court emphasized that R.C. 731.32 requires strict compliance, and the relators' failure to file a complete certified copy of the ordinance rendered their petition defective. The court denied the writ of mandamus, stating that the Board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in sustaining the protest and removing the referendum from the ballot. The court also denied various motions to strike evidence and for oral argument, but granted the relators' motion to amend the case caption. View "State ex rel. Brill v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2024, the Nebraska Secretary of State announced he would not implement recent statutory amendments allowing individuals convicted of felonies to vote upon completing their sentences, deeming the amendments unconstitutional. In response, individuals who had completed their sentences filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary and county election commissioners to implement the amendments and allow them to register to vote.The case was brought directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The relators argued that the amendments provided a clear right to vote and imposed a clear duty on the respondents to allow voter registration. The Secretary, supported by an Attorney General's opinion, argued that the amendments were unconstitutional, asserting that the power to restore voting rights lies with the Board of Pardons, not the Legislature.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that fewer than five judges found the amendments unconstitutional, as required by the Nebraska Constitution to invalidate a legislative act. Consequently, the court determined that the relators had established the prerequisites for mandamus relief. The court issued a peremptory writ directing the Secretary and election commissioners to use voter registration forms required by the amendments and to register the individual relators upon receipt of complete applications. The court also ordered the Secretary to remove any disqualification on registration not contained within the amendments and to comply fully with the new statutory provisions. View "State ex rel. Spung v. Evnen" on Justia Law

In response to challenges faced during the 2020 election, the Texas Legislature enacted S.B. 1 in 2021, which restricts paid "vote harvesting services." This law aims to protect the privacy of mail-in voters by prohibiting compensated interactions intended to influence votes. Plaintiffs, a coalition of organizations, challenged this provision on vagueness and First Amendment grounds, seeking injunctions against various Texas officials.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas enjoined the enforcement of the vote harvesting provision of S.B. 1 on September 28, 2024, nearly three years after the law took effect and just three weeks before voting was to begin. The State of Texas then moved to stay the district court's order pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and granted the State's request for a stay. The court emphasized the Supreme Court's guidance in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which advises against altering election laws close to an election due to potential voter confusion and administrative burdens. The court found that the district court's injunction, issued after mail-in ballots had already been distributed, could lead to significant confusion and disruption.The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to S.B. 1 was not "entirely clearcut," failing to meet the criteria that might justify an exception to the Purcell principle. The court noted that the law's provisions were designed to protect voter privacy and security, similar to protections upheld by the Supreme Court for in-person voting. Consequently, the motion to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal was granted. View "La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott" on Justia Law