Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

Sigcho-Lopez, the alderman for Chicago’s 25th Ward, filed a complaint with the Illinois State Board of Elections, alleging that his predecessor’s (Solis) campaign committee unlawfully paid Solis's personal legal fees from campaign funds. The Board dismissed Sigcho-Lopez’s complaint. On administrative review, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Legal fees incurred to pay for a public official’s criminal defense against investigations or charges of public corruption do not amount to a per se prohibited personal debt under the plain language and spirit of Election Code section 9-8.10(a)(3); whether legal defense fees amount to a personal debt that does not defray the customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with the performance of governmental and public service functions must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Solis was not indicted but worked with federal investigators using his official capacity to expose public corruption. Considering the evidence before the Board, its conclusion that Solis’s legal fees amounted to a proper expenditure not prohibited as “satisfaction or repayment” of personal debt but incurred “to defray the customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with the performance of governmental and public service functions” was not clearly erroneous. View "Sigcho-Lopez v. Illinois State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

About seven weeks after the 2020 presidential election, Republican state legislators, individual voters, and organizations representing voters from Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—all states carried by Joseph R. Biden Jr.—sued to prevent Congress from certifying their states’ electoral results. The district court denied their motion to enjoin the counting of electoral votes, and, after the Senate certified Biden as the winner, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case. In a post-dismissal order cataloging the suit’s “numerous shortcomings,” the district court referred plaintiffs’ counsel, Kaardal, to the Committee on Grievances for possible discipline. “When any counsel seeks to target processes at the heart of our democracy,” the district court reasoned, “the Committee may well conclude that they are required to act with far more diligence and good faith than existed here.”The D.C. Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court’s referral is not a final order. Rather than fixing Kaardal’s rights and liabilities, the challenged order merely initiated disciplinary proceedings. View "Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Terpsehore Maras, who circulated petitions to appear on the May 2022 Republican Party primary ballot as a candidate for secretary of state, holding that Maras was not entitled to mandamus relief.When the secretary of state's office forwarded Maras's part-petitions to various county boards of elections for signature verification most of the boards did not receive an accompanying declaration of candidacy. Many of the county boards, therefore, invalidated the entire part-petitions due to the absence of a declaration. Because the county boards did not validate sufficient petition signatures for Maras to qualify as a candidate on the ballot the secretary of state's office refused to certify her name as a candidate. The Supreme Court denied a writ sought by Maras to compel the Secretary of State to send her declaration of candidacy to the county boards for a new signature verification to be conducted, holding that Maras failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her part-petitions met the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 3513.09. View "State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief in this mandamus action and directed the secretary of the city of West Lake Hills to accept Linda Anthony's application and place her on the ballot as a candidate for Mayor of the City of West Lake Hills, holding that Anthony was entitled to relief.Anthony, the current Mayor of West Lake Hills, submitted a 2022 ballot application that left blank the box for the applicant's occupation. The city secretary rejected the application because it did not provide all of the information required by Tex. Elec. Code 141.031, thus excluding Anthony from a place on the ballot as candidate for mayor. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding (1) Anthony's application was not defective for failing to list an occupation when she currently had no paid employment; and (2) therefore, the city secretary had no discretion to reject Anthony's application. View "In re Anthony" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing the petitions for writs of mandamus filed by Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al. (collectively, the Alliance), holding that the Alliance failed to show the violation of a duty clearly established by law.In the mandamus petitions, the Alliance alleged that Ramsey County, Olmsted County, and other entities violated their statutory obligations for appointing members to absentee ballot board during the 2020 general election. Specifically, Alliance argued that the statutory requirements for election judges also apply to deputy county auditors. The district court dismissed the petitions, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed the Alliance's mandamus petitions. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. County of Ramsey" on Justia Law

Relators asked the Oregon Supreme Court for extraordinary relief: an alternative writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to withdraw her orders that disqualified their initiative petitions from appearing on the November 2022 general election ballot, order expedited briefing in this mandamus matter, and issue an expedited decision and a peremptory writ, which would give them the time that they deem necessary to complete the remaining steps to ensure that their petitions are placed the ballot. The Court denied relief, finding "In a circumstance like this, in which petitioners propose a change in Oregon law but their petition is disqualified by the secretary, petitioners’ efforts may be delayed, but they are not foreclosed." View "Oregon ex rel Ofsink v. Fagan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the second revised General Assembly-district plan adopted by respondent Ohio Redistricting Commission violates Ohio Const. art. XI, sections 6(A) and 6(B) and ordered the Commission to be reconstituted.In the first time this issue was before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the Commission's original plan was invalid because the Commission had not attempted to meet the standards set forth in Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The Commission subsequently adopted a revised plan, but the Supreme Court invalidated that plan because the Commission again had not satisfied sections 6(A) and 6(B). At issue now before the Supreme Court was the Commission's second revised plan. The Commission invalidated the plan in its entirety, holding that the second revised plan violates sections 6(A) and 6(B) and the a newly reconstituted Commission must adopt a new plan in conformity with the Ohio Constitution. View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that sovereign immunity bars plaintiffs' challenges to Texas's system for verifying the signatures on mail-in ballots. The court concluded that the Secretary does not verify mail-in ballots; rather, that is the job of local election officials. Therefore, the district court erred in finding that the Secretary was the proper defendant under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order enjoining the Secretary, vacated the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flores v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' action challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of the Texas Election Code regulating mail-in balloting is barred by sovereign immunity. The court concluded that the Secretary does not enforce the challenged provisions and thus the district court erred in finding the Secretary was a proper defendant under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. View "Lewis v. Hughs" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' constitutional claims challenging Texas's elimination of straight-ticket voting are barred by sovereign immunity because the Secretary of State does not enforce the law that ended straight-ticket voting. The court agreed with the Secretary that he lacks the necessary connection to enforcing House Bill 25's repeal of straight-ticket voting and therefore is not a proper defendant under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155–56 (1908). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order enjoining the Secretary of State, vacated the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Texas Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott" on Justia Law