Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

In a special election for Chatham County Commissioner, Jeffry L. Miller, an elector, filed a pro se petition against several Chatham County election officials and candidate Malinda Jane Scott Hodge. Miller contested the election results, arguing that Hodge was ineligible due to residency requirements and her former position on the Chatham County Board of Elections. He also claimed that the use of a QR code on the ballot was illegal and that the election officials failed to provide proper notice of redistricting.The trial court held an evidentiary hearing but did not issue a ruling before the runoff election. Miller did not call any witnesses or present new evidence at the hearing. The runoff election proceeded, and the trial court later dismissed Miller's petition, ruling that Hodge was eligible and that the special election results were valid. The court also found that Miller's petition was moot due to the subsequent runoff election. Miller appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal, citing long-standing precedent that election challenges must be resolved with dispatch before a subsequent election occurs. The court emphasized that Miller failed to seek an expedited ruling or a stay of the runoff election. The court clarified that while the occurrence of a subsequent election does not necessarily moot an election contest, prudential reasons and statutory framework require swift resolution of such disputes. The court concluded that Miller's delay and failure to utilize available procedures warranted dismissal of the appeal. View "Miller v. Hodge" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Re-Enfranchisement Act, which allows individuals convicted of felony-level offenses to vote once they are no longer incarcerated. The plaintiffs, individual taxpayers and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, argued that the Act violates the Minnesota Constitution by restoring only the right to vote rather than all civil rights. They also claimed that using public funds to educate and notify people about the new voting provision is unlawful if the Act itself is unconstitutional.The district court denied the petition, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court determined that taxpayer standing requires a challenge to an illegal expenditure or waste of tax money, which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate. The court also found that the Minnesota Voters Alliance lacked associational standing because its members did not have standing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court clarified that taxpayer standing exists only when the central dispute involves alleged unlawful disbursements of public funds. The court held that the plaintiffs could not manufacture standing by pointing to incidental expenditures related to implementing the law. Since the plaintiffs' challenge was primarily against the substantive law itself and not the expenditures, they lacked the necessary standing. Consequently, the Minnesota Voters Alliance also lacked associational standing. The court did not address the merits of the case due to the lack of standing. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Hunt" on Justia Law

A nominee for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia and the Libertarian Party of Georgia challenged a state law that allows only certain political parties to form "leadership committees" capable of accepting unlimited campaign contributions. The Libertarian Party, classified as a "political body" under Georgia law, was excluded from forming such committees, which they argued violated their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their alleged injury was not traceable to the defendants and could not be redressed by the requested relief. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants had enforced or threatened to enforce the law against them. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined it was moot because the 2022 election had already occurred, and the nominee had lost. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were specific to the 2022 election and did not present a live controversy. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the case fell under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, as there was no reasonable expectation that the same controversy would recur involving the same parties.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court to dismiss it as moot. View "Graham v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Arizona's voter registration law, specifically A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C), which requires documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) for voter registration. Plaintiffs, including various advocacy groups and individuals, argued that this law conflicts with a prior consent decree (LULAC Consent Decree) that allows voter registration without DPOC for federal elections. The district court issued an injunction barring the enforcement of the law, leading to an appeal by the Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants, including the Republican National Committee and Arizona state legislators.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the new law violated the LULAC Consent Decree. The court issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C). The Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants filed an emergency motion to stay the district court's judgment, which was partially granted by a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The motions panel stayed the injunction concerning A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C) but left the rest of the district court's judgment intact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court granted the plaintiffs' emergency motion for reconsideration of the partial stay. The Ninth Circuit vacated the motions panel's order that had stayed the district court's injunction against enforcing A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C). The court found that the Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits or a high degree of irreparable injury. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo in election cases to avoid voter confusion and potential disenfranchisement, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez. The court concluded that the balance of hardships and public interest favored vacating the stay. View "MI FAMILIA VOTA, V. MAYES" on Justia Law

A nonpartisan candidate filed a complaint challenging the primary election ballot in Hawaii, arguing that the requirement for voters to select a political preference violated the Hawaii Constitution and various state statutes. The plaintiff sought an order to redesign the ballot and declare the current ballot invalid.The State of Hawaii, Office of Elections, and the Chief Election Officer moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim or lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Hawaii reviewed the case and found that the plaintiff's claims under HRS §§ 11-173.5, 11-174.5, and 91-14 were not valid because no election results had been posted, which is a prerequisite for these statutes. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge all statewide ballots under HRS § 11-172, as he was only a candidate in the Mayor's race in Honolulu. The court also determined that the plaintiff's complaint did not state a claim under HRS § 11-172 because the alleged ballot defects would not impact his nonpartisan race.The Supreme Court of Hawaii dismissed the election contest claims for failure to state a claim. The court also construed the complaint as a petition for a writ of mandamus but denied the petition, finding that the plaintiff did not establish a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested or a lack of other means to address the alleged wrong. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Dicks v. State " on Justia Law

The Stark County Board of Elections considered and voted to purchase Dominion Voting Systems equipment during four meetings. These discussions and decisions occurred in executive sessions, which are closed to the public. Look Ahead America and Merry Lynne Rini filed a complaint alleging that the board violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act by not limiting its executive-session discussions to matters where premature disclosure would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage.The Stark County Court of Common Pleas upheld the board’s actions, interpreting R.C. 121.22(G)(2) to mean that the premature-disclosure clause applied only to the last-listed reason for entering executive session, not to the purchase of property. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing with the trial court’s interpretation.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower courts. The court held that the premature-disclosure clause in R.C. 121.22(G)(2) applies to all the permissible reasons listed for entering executive session, not just the last one. The court reversed the Fifth District’s judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial applying this interpretation. View "Look Ahead Am. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the Utah Legislature's repeal and replacement of a citizen initiative known as "Proposition 4," which aimed to reform the state's redistricting process to prevent partisan gerrymandering. Proposition 4, passed by Utah voters in 2018, established an Independent Redistricting Commission and set forth neutral redistricting standards, including a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering. However, before the next redistricting cycle, the Utah Legislature enacted Senate Bill 200 (S.B. 200), which repealed Proposition 4 and replaced it with a new law that did not include the same anti-gerrymandering provisions and weakened the role of the Independent Commission.In the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, the plaintiffs argued that the Legislature's actions violated the Utah Constitution by nullifying the reforms enacted by the people through Proposition 4. The district court dismissed this claim, holding that the Legislature has the authority to amend or repeal any statute, including those enacted by citizen initiative, without limitation. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on two constitutional provisions: the Initiative Provision in article VI, section 1, which grants the people the power to initiate legislation, and the Alter or Reform Clause in article I, section 2, which states that the people have the right to alter or reform their government. The court concluded that these provisions, when read together, limit the Legislature's power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative that reforms the government. The court held that the people’s right to reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from legislative actions that would impair the reform enacted by the people.The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court's dismissal of Count V, which challenged the Legislature's repeal and replacement of Proposition 4, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized that legislative changes to a government-reform initiative must not impair the reform and must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest if they do. View "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature" on Justia Law

A group of citizens in the Town of Bel Air, Maryland, submitted a document to the town's Board of Commissioners, purporting to be a petition for a referendum on a comprehensive rezoning ordinance. The document, however, did not meet the requirements of the town's charter for such a petition. The Board of Commissioners determined that the document was invalid and did not send it to the Board of Election Judges for verification of signatures. The citizens filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Harford County, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Board of Commissioners' determination was invalid and an order directing the town to verify the signatures on the document. The circuit court ruled in favor of the citizens, declaring the Board of Commissioners' determination invalid and ordering the town to verify the signatures.The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the Board of Commissioners correctly determined that the document did not meet the requirements of the town's charter to be considered a valid petition for a referendum. The court also held that the Board of Commissioners was not required to send the document to the Board of Election Judges for verification of signatures before making this determination. The court remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions to enter a declaratory judgment consistent with its opinion. View "Town of Bel Air v. Bodt" on Justia Law

The case involves the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Campaign Legal Center, and the political action committee Correct the Record. The Campaign Legal Center alleged that Correct the Record coordinated with Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and spent close to $6 million without disclosing these expenditures as contributions. Correct the Record argued that these expenditures were exempt from disclosure due to the FEC's "internet exemption," which exempts unpaid internet communications from contribution limitations and disclosure requirements.The FEC dismissed the complaint, leading to a lawsuit by the Campaign Legal Center. The district court ruled in favor of the Campaign Legal Center, finding that the FEC's dismissal was contrary to law. The FEC appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the FEC's interpretation of the "internet exemption" was contrary to the Federal Election Campaign Act's regulation of coordinated expenditures. The court also found that the FEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing allegations of coordination between Correct the Record and the Clinton campaign. The case was remanded back to the FEC for further action consistent with the court's decision. View "Campaign Legal Center v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to several voting requirements in Wisconsin, including the requirement that absentee ballots be returned only by mail or in person to the clerk's office and not to a secure drop box. The Circuit Court for Dane County dismissed the claim related to the drop box, citing a previous decision, Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, which determined that the use of ballot drop boxes was not allowed under Wisconsin law.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, however, disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court found that the language of the relevant statute, Wisconsin Statute § 6.87(4)(b)1, allows for the use of ballot drop boxes. The court noted that the statute requires that a completed absentee ballot be "mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." The court interpreted this to mean that delivering a ballot to a drop box is a means of delivering it in person "to the municipal clerk."The court also rejected the argument that the use of drop boxes contravenes the legislative policy expressed in Wisconsin Statute § 6.84(1), which states that absentee balloting must be "carefully regulated." The court found that drop boxes are a form of regulation and are consistent with the decentralized system of election administration in Wisconsin.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin therefore reversed the order of the Circuit Court for Dane County dismissing the claim related to the drop box and remanded the case back to the lower court to reinstate the claim. View "Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law