Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants in this election contest brought by Plaintiff Richard Kim, holding that Josh Green received the highest number of votes and that his name shall be placed on the ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for the Office of Governor in the 2022 General Election.Plaintiff, one of seven Democratic Party candidates for the Office of Governor in the 2022 General Election, brought this complaint asserting that compromised vote counting occurred and that he should have been declared the winner of the primary election race held on August 13, 2022. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact related to Plaintiff's election contest. View "Kim v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding that the Supreme Court construed as an election complaint, holding that this Court did not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff the relief he sought.Plaintiff, one of the two Primary Election Republican Party candidates in the Senate District 24 race, brought this action requesting that an order be issued halting the certification of the 2022 Primary Election so that a manual recount could be conducted and asserting, among other things, a lack of resolution on certain election integrity inquiries. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the State of Hawai'i Office of Elections, holding that this Court lacked the authority under Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b) to grant Plaintiff the relief he sought. View "Lam v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding brought upon Plaintiff's submission of a document entitled "Election Complaint; Motion for Preliminary Injunction Rule 65 HRCP," which was filed as an election contest complaint, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.In the submitted document, Plaintiff Daniel B. Decker IV argued that Defendant, the State of Hawai'i Office of Elections, failed properly to apply the qualification process upon the Hawaii Republican Party for the year 2022 primary election. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Decker v. Hawai'i Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied an emergency mandamus action sought by Republican Party candidates in the November 2022 general election to remove their Libertarian Party opponents for failure to pay a statutory filing fee, holding that the petition was untimely.The Supreme Court denied the Republican's petition asserting that the Texas Election Code requires exclusion of the Libertarian candidates from the ballot without resolving he merits of the parties' dispute because the petition did not comport with recent instruction that "invoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch." The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the petition did not comport with recent instruction that "invoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch." View "In re Self" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's complaint seeking an injunction and declaratory relief to enjoin a student member on the Board of Education of Howard County from exercising any voting power and a declaration that the election process for the student member violates the Maryland Constitution, holding that there was no error.After relying on remote learning for schooling during the Covid-19 pandemic, at the end of 2020, the Board of Education of Howard County held votes on motions to resume in-person instruction. Each motion failed by a stalemate vote, with the student member causing the stalemate. After the Board decided to continue with remote learning Petitioners brought this action seeking an injunction and a declaration that the statute creating the student member on the Board is unconstitutional. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the provisions of section 3-701 of the Education Article concerning the student member position on the Board do not violate the Maryland Constitution. View "Spiegel v. Board of Education of Howard County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding brought upon Plaintiffs' submission of a document entitled "Election Complaint; Motion for Preliminary Injunction Rule 65 HRCP," which was filed as an election contest complaint, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.In their document that was filed as an election contest complaint Plaintiffs asserted that the Hawai'i Republican Party should have been disqualified as an active party and requesting that the Hawai'i Republican Party name be barred from appearing on the 2022 general election ballot. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over their complaint or the relief they sought. View "Dicks v. State of Haw. Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the exemption from the referendum power for law "for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state government and state institutions," see Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, 1(3), apples to tax measures and that a revenue measure is exempt from referendum provided that it is for the support and maintenance of existing departments of the state government and state institutions.SB 1828 was signed by the Governor as a tax bill for the 2022 fiscal year and imposes a "flat" tax of 2.5 percent on taxable revenues but becomes effective only if the state General Fund revenues reach specific targets. Invest in Arizona (IIA) sought to prevent implementation of the flat tax by referring SB 1828 to the ballot in the November 2022 general election. Appellants filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Secretary of State from accepting or certifying any petition filed in support of a referendum of SB 1828, including IIA's petition. The trial court ruled that SB 1828 is referable and denied the preliminary injunction request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exemption from the referendum power for laws "for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state government and state institutions" applies to tax measures. View "Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Hobbs" on Justia Law