text: Election Law - Justia Case Law Summaries http://law.justia.com/summaryfeed/election-law/ 2016-07-28T10:20:41-08:00 Justia Inc http://www.justia.com/ Justia Law https://justatic.com/v/20160724183259/shared/images/social-media/law.png Copyright 2014 Justia Inc http://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2016/sc95369.html Pestka v. State 2016-07-26T10:02:54-08:00 2016-07-26T13:56:58-08:00 In April 2015, the Missouri General assembly passed House Bill 150 (HB 150), which made changes to Missouri's unemployment benefits compensation statutes. The Governor subsequently vetoed HB 150. In September 2015, during a veto session, the Missouri Senate reconsidered HB 150 and voted to override the governor's veto. Appellants filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that HB 150 is unconstitutional and requested an injunction prohibiting HB 150 from being executed or enforced. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Senate lacked authority to vote to override the Governor's veto during the veto session because only bills returned by the Governor on or after the fifth day before the end of the regular legislative session can be taken up during a September veto session. View "Pestka v. State" on Justia Law 2016-07-26 state Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri George W. Draper, III SC95369 http://law.justia.com/cases/north-dakota/supreme-court/2016/20150280.html North Dakota v. Francis 2016-07-20T12:03:33-08:00 2016-07-21T12:03:23-08:00 Curtis Francis and another man, Michael Dax, were collecting signatures near the Jamestown Civic Center, a designated polling place, on voting day. They were doing so in an effort to get an initiated measure regarding environmental concerns placed on the next ballot. While they were collecting signatures, it began to rain. They moved under a canopy covering an entrance to the polling place. They continued collecting signatures as individuals walked past them to vote. One voter told an election clerk about Francis and Dax's activities. The clerk informed the county auditor. The auditor, along with a plain-clothed security officer, went to speak with Francis and Dax. They informed the two it was illegal to collect signatures within 100 feet of a polling place. Dax began arguing with the auditor; Francis continued collecting signatures. A police officer was dispatched. The officer confiscated the signatures, but did not arrest Francis or Dax. After the incident, the officer forwarded a report to the county prosecutor. The prosecutor filed charges against Francis for collecting signatures within 100 feet of an open polling place. Francis appealed after conditionally pleading guilty to gathering signatures within 100 feet of a polling place. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the electioneering law he was charged under did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was a reasonable restriction on the North Dakota Constitution's initiated ballot measure provision. The Court also concluded Francis has failed to show he was selectively prosecuted. View "North Dakota v. Francis" on Justia Law 2016-07-20 state North Dakota North Dakota Supreme Court Carol Ronning Kapsner 20150280 http://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/2016/scwc-14-0001313-0.html Green Party of Hawaii v. Nago 2016-07-19T13:01:48-08:00 2016-07-19T19:55:19-08:00 The Green Party of Hawaii and seven registered voters who voted in the 2012 General Elections (collectively, Green Party) filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that certain methodologies and procedures used by the Office of Elections in the 2012 election were invalid under the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA). The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Office of Elections, concluding that the challenged procedures were not subject to HAPA rulemaking requirements. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment in part, holding that the procedures used to determine that there will be a sufficient number of ballots ordered for each precinct for a general or primary election and the policy for counting votes cast on ballots for the incorrect precinct are rules under HAPA and, therefore, are subject to HAPA's rulemaking requirements. View "Green Party of Hawaii v. Nago" on Justia Law 2016-07-19 state Hawaii Supreme Court of Hawaii Richard W. Pollack SCWC-14-0001313 http://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2016/115108.html OCPA Impact, Inc v. Sheehan 2016-07-18T13:33:24-08:00 2016-07-19T03:46:21-08:00 In 2015, Respondents-Proponents Shawn Sheehan, Linda Reid, and Melvin Moran filed Initiative Petition No. 403 (State Question No. 779), with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. The petition sought to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by adding a new Article 13-C, creating the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund. Funds generated by the one-cent tax would be distributed to public school districts, higher education institutions, career and technology centers, and early childhood education providers for certain educational purposes outlined in the proposed article. Petitioners filed suit to challenge the gist of the measure post-circulation and the sufficiency of the Attorney General's rewritten ballot title. After review of the matter, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held the time for challenging the gist of a measure had expired, and found that the Attorney General's rewritten ballot title was deficient. "We agree that the ballot title is misleading if it does not mention the Board of Equalization's role in limiting appropriations. In addition, the ballot title should refrain from partiality and should clarify the amount of the sales and use tax as well as its allocation." Pursuant to 34 O.S. Supp. 2015, sec. 10 (A)6 , the Court corrected and amended the ballot title. View "OCPA Impact, Inc v. Sheehan" on Justia Law 2016-07-18 state Oklahoma Oklahoma Supreme Court Douglas L. Combs 115108 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/15-1983/15-1983-2016-07-14.html Bernbeck v. Gale 2016-07-14T07:01:37-08:00 2016-07-14T15:33:42-08:00 Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two public officials in their official capacities, alleging that the procedures they enforce for placing initiatives on Nebraska state and municipal ballots violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief. The district court dismissed all but the Fourteenth Amendment claim against Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale, entered judgment for plaintiff on that claim, enjoined Gale from enforcing certain provisions of the Nebraska Constitution, and awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs. The Supreme Court made clear in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife that a wish to engage in future conduct, alone, does not provide the immediacy needed for threatened enforcement of a contested law to constitute injury in fact. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish standing to bring his Fourteenth Amendment claim where his interest in placing an initiative on the ballot, even if evidenced by a sworn statement and sample petition filed with Gale, is insufficient to establish an imminent threat of enforcement. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to prove he has standing to assert his interest as a petition signer where there is no evidence that plaintiff is registered to vote. Accordingly, the court vacated that portion of the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions. View "Bernbeck v. Gale" on Justia Law 2016-07-14 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Beam 15-1983 http://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/2016/s-16-107.html Hargesheimer v. Gale 2016-07-08T05:32:16-08:00 2016-07-08T09:33:17-08:00 Appellants filed a complaint challenging a referendum petition. The purpose of the petition was to refer to the voters in the November 2016 general election the question of whether the death penalty should be reinstated. Appellants sought to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing the referendum on the ballot, alleging that the referendum petition was not legally sufficient because a list of sponsors filed with the petition did not include the name of Governor Pete Ricketts, who allegedly engaged in activities that established that he was a sponsor of the referendum. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Ricketts' alleged financial or other support of the referendum did not make him a a person "sponsoring the petition," as that phrase is used in Neb. Rev. Stat. 32-1405(1); and (2) therefore, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Hargesheimer v. Gale" on Justia Law 2016-07-08 state Nebraska Nebraska Supreme Court Lindsey Miller-Lerman S-16-107 http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016/sjc-12106-12117.html Hensley v. Attorney General 2016-07-06T06:01:59-08:00 2016-07-06T17:32:06-08:00 At issue in these two consolidated appeals was an initiative petition that proposed to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana and products that contain marijuana concentrate. In the first case (Hensley case) Plaintiffs claimed that the Attorney General erred in certifying the petition for inclusion on the ballot under article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution because it contained two unrelated subjects, because the Attorney General's summary was not fair, and because the title and one-sentence statements were misleading. In the second case (Allen case) Plaintiffs challenged the title and one-sentence statements but on different grounds from those alleged by the Hensley plaintiffs. The Supreme Judicial Court ordered the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth to amend the title and statement, holding (1) the Attorney General did not err in certifying the petition for inclusion on the ballot because the petition contains only related subjects and the summary of the petition is fair; but (2) the petition's title and the one-sentence statement describing the effect of a "yes" vote are misleading, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 54, 53. View "Hensley v. Attorney General" on Justia Law 2016-07-06 state Massachusetts Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ralph D. Gants SJC-12106; 12117 http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2016/16sa153.html In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #132 & #133 2016-07-05T09:30:39-08:00 2016-07-05T12:18:26-08:00 Petitioner Donna Johnson challenged the Ballot Title Board's decision to set the title, ballot title and submission clause for Initiatives 2015-2016 #132 and 133, contending that the titles did not satisfy the clear title requirement and they did not contain a single subject. If passed, the Initiatives, substantially similar in language and form, represented two of several redistricting concepts proposed by the Proponents during the 2016 election cycle. Both Initiatives would have amended article V, section 44 through 48 of the Colorado Constitution by restructuring or replacing the Colorado Reapportionment Commission. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that both of the proposed Initiatives encompassed multiple subjects in violation of Colorado law. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Title Board and remanded for revision. View "In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #132 & #133" on Justia Law 2016-07-05 state Colorado Colorado Supreme Court Monica M. Márquez 16SA153 http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2016/16sa157.html In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015-2016 Initiative #156 2016-07-05T07:05:47-08:00 2016-07-05T12:17:28-08:00 Petitioner John Robinson challenged the Ballot Title Board's decision to set the title, ballot title and submission clause for Initiative 2015-2016 #156, contending that the title did not satisfy the clear title requirement and it did not contain a single subject. If passed, Initiative #156 would have added a new section to the Colorado Revised Statutes prohibiting state and local licensing authorities from issuing "a license to food store that offers for sale, in sealed containers for off-premises consumption," certain "intoxicants, namely marijuana, marijuana product, liquor, wine and malt liquor. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded the title indeed violated the clear title requirement because it was confusing and failed to help voters decipher the purpose of the initiative, or to help voters decide whether to support or oppose it. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Title Board's setting of title for Initiative #156, and returned it to the Board for revision. View "In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015-2016 Initiative #156" on Justia Law 2016-07-05 state Colorado Colorado Supreme Court Brian D. Boatright 16SA157 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/16-1270/16-1270-2016-07-01.html Raleigh Wake Citizens Ass'n v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections 2016-07-01T08:30:19-08:00 2016-07-01T15:49:17-08:00 In these consolidated cases, plaintiffs filed suit challenging two redistricting laws, alleging that some Wake County School Board and Wake County Board of County Commissioners districts have been over-populated, while others have been under-populated. Plaintiffs further assert that these discrepancies result in some votes counting more while others count less, and that the discrepancies stem from illegitimate redistricting factors. The court concluded that, to succeed on the merits, plaintiffs in one person, one vote cases with population deviations below 10% must show by a preponderance of the evidence that improper considerations predominate in explaining the deviations. In this case, plaintiffs have proven that it is more probable than not that the population deviations at issue here reflect the predominance of an illegitimate reapportionment factor, namely an intentional effort to create a significant partisan advantage. Therefore, the district court committed reversible error in granting judgment for defendants. For the same reasons that plaintiffs succeed with their federal claim, they also succeed with their North Carolina state one person, one vote claim. Finally, the district court did not commit clear error in rejecting plaintiffs' racial gerrymandering claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded in part, and affirmed in part. View "Raleigh Wake Citizens Ass'n v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law 2016-07-01 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit James Andrew Wynn, Jr. 16-1270 16-1271 http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016/sjc-12064.html Gray v. Attorney General 2016-07-01T06:31:57-08:00 2016-07-01T13:25:19-08:00 On August 5, 2015, sixteen voters submitted Initiative Petition 15-12 to the Attorney General. The petition (1) sought to end the use of the Common Core State Standards in defining the educational curriculum of publicly funded elementary and secondary students in the Commonwealth, and (2) addressed the standardized testing process used in Massachusetts school districts. The Attorney General certified to the Secretary of the Commonwealth that the petition was in the proper form and met the requirements of article 48, The Initiative, II, section 3 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. On January 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to quash the certification of the petition and to enjoin the Secretary from including the substance of the proposed measure on the November, 2016 ballot. The Supreme Judicial Court granted the requested relief, holding that the Attorney General's certification of Initiative Petition 15-12 did not comply with article 48 because it contained provisions that were not related or mutually dependent. View "Gray v. Attorney General" on Justia Law 2016-07-01 state Massachusetts Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Botsford SJC-12064 http://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2016/65364.html Scenic Nevada, Inc. v. City of Reno 2016-06-30T09:10:16-08:00 2016-06-30T12:11:41-08:00 The Nevada Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending or repealing a voter-initiated statute for three years after it takes effect. Scenic Nevada, Inc. qualified an initiative for submission to general-election voters in 2000. The initiative passed, and the Initiative Ordinance, which related to the construction of new billboards, became effective. Within three years of the new law's effective date, the City of Reno enacted two billboard-related ordinances, the Conforming Ordinance and the Banking Ordinance, which amended the Initiative Ordinance. In 2012, the City enacted the Digital Ordinance, which reenacted and amended the Conforming and Banking Ordinances. Scenic Nevada sued the City, seeking to invalidate the Digital Ordinance because it incorporated the Conforming and Banking Ordinances, which were enacted within the first three years of the voters' 2000 Initiative Ordinance. The district court entered judgment for the City, concluding that the three-year legislative moratorium does not apply to municipal initiatives. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the three-year legislative moratorium applies to municipal initiatives; and (2) although the City enacted the Conforming and Banking Ordinances within three years of its passage, the subsequent reenactment of those ordinances after the three-year legislative moratorium cured the constitutional defect. View "Scenic Nevada, Inc. v. City of Reno" on Justia Law 2016-06-30 state Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada Kristina Pickering 65364 http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/2016/151661.html Griffin v. Pate 2016-06-30T05:31:18-08:00 2016-06-30T09:16:53-08:00 Kelli Jo Griffin was convicted for the crime of delivery of a controlled substance. Griffin later registered to vote and cast a provision ballot in a municipal election. The county auditor concluded that Griffin was not eligible to vote due to her felony conviction and rejected her ballot. Griffin filed a petition asking the district court to declare that her felony conviction did not disqualify her from voting under the Iowa Constitution. The district court denied relief. At issue on appeal was whether the felony crime of delivery of a controlled substance is an "infamous crime" under the voter disqualification provision of the Iowa Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Constitution permits persons convicted of a felony to be disqualified from voting in Iowa until pardoned or otherwise restored to the rights of citizenship. View "Griffin v. Pate" on Justia Law 2016-06-30 state Iowa Iowa Supreme Court Mark S. Cady 151661 http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/2016/152534.html Michigan v. Feeley 2016-06-30T05:00:07-08:00 2016-06-30T06:04:58-08:00 In the early morning hours of May 5, 2014, a ruckus at a Brighton bar resulted in a call to the police. Two officers from the Brighton Police Department responded: Christopher Parks, a full-time police officer, and Douglas Roberts, a reserve police officer. Defendant Ryan Feeley was arrested and charged with resisting and obstructing a police officer. Defendant objected to the prosecution's request for a bindover, arguing that: (1) Roberts did not have an articulable suspicion for stopping defendant in the first place, and (2) defendant could not be held criminally liable for resisting and obstructing under MCL 750.81d because Roberts, being a reserve police officer, was not a "police officer" within the meaning of that statute. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling that reserve police officers were not police officers for purposes of MCL 750.81d(7)(b)(i). The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to address whether the district court correctly ruled that the reserve police officer in this case lacked the authority to conduct a stop of defendant. View "Michigan v. Feeley" on Justia Law 2016-06-29 state Michigan Michigan Supreme Court Bernstein 152534 http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/c079432.html Reed v. Gallagher 2016-06-29T12:00:38-08:00 2016-06-30T04:35:18-08:00 Plaintiff James Reed appealed a judgment entered in favor of defendants James Gallagher and Gallagher For Assembly 2014 (together, Gallagher) after the trial court granted Gallagher's special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute (strategic lawsuits against public participation). Reed and Gallagher were rival candidates for the California Assembly. During the final weeks of the campaign, Gallagher ran a 30-second television ad characterizing Reed as an "unscrupulous lawyer." After losing the election, Reed sued Gallagher for defamation based on statements made in the ad. Gallagher responded with a demurrer and special motion to strike under section 425.16. The trial court sustained the demurrer and granted the special motion to strike finding, with respect to the latter motion, that the allegedly defamatory statements arose from protected activity and Reed failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claim. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Reed v. Gallagher" on Justia Law 2016-06-29 state California California Court of Appeal Renner C079432 http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016/sjc-12063.html Bogertman v. Attorney General 2016-06-28T06:02:05-08:00 2016-06-28T10:49:32-08:00 Eugene McCain filed an initiative petition that sought to amend Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 23K to authorize the Gaming Commission to award one additional license for a slot machine parlor. The Attorney General certified the petition. Plaintiffs, ten registered voters and residents of Suffolk County, brought an action against the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, contending that the petition violated tw restrictions set forth in Article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, which sets forth certain standards for initiative petitions. The Supreme Judicial Court denied relief, holding that the petition did not violate Article 48's restrictions and was therefore properly certified by the Attorney General. View "Bogertman v. Attorney General" on Justia Law 2016-06-28 state Massachusetts Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ralph D. Gants SJC-12063 http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2016/37-map-2016-0.html In Re: Nom. of Joseph Vodvarka 2016-06-23T12:03:43-08:00 2016-06-23T15:49:15-08:00 Candidate Joseph Vodvarka appealed a Commonwealth Court deicision which set aside his nomination petition as Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. Senate in a primary election held in April 2016. The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision and ordered Vodvarka be placed on the ballot. At issue was a challenge to the register of voters, or the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors or "SURE." The Supreme Court held that the signature of a registered voter whose name appeared in the SURE registry could not be stricken from a nominating petition solely because the address listed on the nominating petition was different from the address at which the signer was currently registered to vote. View "In Re: Nom. of Joseph Vodvarka" on Justia Law 2016-06-23 state Pennsylvania Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Donohue 37 MAP 2016 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/15-1162/15-1162-2016-06-20.html Sarvis v. Alcorn 2016-06-20T10:30:21-08:00 2016-06-20T14:04:02-08:00 Plaintiff, a political figure in the Libertarian Party of Virginia, filed suit challenging Virginia's three-tiered ballot ordering law, Virginia Code 24.2-613. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff principally argued on appeal that Virginia's three-tiered ballot ordering law advantages candidates from what he calls "major parties" and disadvantages candidates like him that hail from what he calls "minor parties." The court noted that the text and history of the Constitution, well established Supreme Court precedent, and the structural principles inherent in our federal system counsel respect for the Virginia General Assembly's power to administer elections in Virginia. With state legislatures' longstanding authority to regulate elections in mind, the court employed the Supreme Court's Anderson/Burdick decisional framework to distinguish those laws whose burdens are uniquely unconstitutional from the majority of laws whose validity is unquestioned. The court concluded that the three-tiered ballot ordering law imposes little burden on plaintiff's constitutional rights, and Virginia articulates several important interests supporting the law. The ballot ordering law imposes only the most modest burdens on plaintiff's rights where the law is facially neutral and nondiscriminatory. Furthermore, the law is supported by important regulatory interests where the law may assist the voting process by reducing voter confusion and preserving party-order, as well as reduce multi-party factionalism and promote political stability. Therefore, the court concluded that it has no basis for finding the state statute unconstitutional and affirmed the judgment. View "Sarvis v. Alcorn" on Justia Law 2016-06-20 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit James Harvie Wilkinson, III 15-1162 http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2016/s232642.html Brown v. Super. Ct. 2016-06-06T09:00:38-08:00 2016-06-06T09:07:51-08:00 The Legislature specified that any amendments to a measure submitted for comment must be "reasonably germane to the theme, purpose, or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed." At issue is the scope of Elections Code provisions enacted in 2014, which created a new process by which a proposed initiative measure is submitted for public comment. In this case, proponents decided to amend their measure, deleting some provisions and adding others that were supported by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Challengers sought a writ of mandate requiring the Attorney General to reject the amendments. The trial court granted the writ. The proponents, joined by the Governor, sought emergency relief in this court. The court granted the requested relief and directed the trial court to vacate its judgment. The court concluded that the legislative history and statutory language demonstrate that the Legislature intended the comment period to facilitate feedback, not to create a broad public forum. Nor did the Legislature preclude substantive amendments. The court concluded that, while the new process imposes time constraints on various governmental functions, the constraints are similar to those that existed under the former statutory scheme. In particular, the Legislature continued existing law relating to fiscal analyses of the impacts of proposed measures. View "Brown v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law 2016-06-06 state California Supreme Court of California Carol Corrigan S232642 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/15-3046/15-3046-2016-06-02.html Constitution Party of Pa. v. Cortes 2016-06-02T09:00:06-08:00 2016-06-02T12:36:30-08:00 Aspiring political parties and their members challenged, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the constitutionality of two provisions of Pennsylvania's election code: 25 Pa. Stat. 2911(b) and 2937. The provisions, respectively, regulate the number of signatures required to attain a position on the general election ballot and govern the process by which private individuals can sue in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to challenge the validity of a candidate's nomination paper or petition. At the summary judgment stage, the district court held that, acting in combination, the two provisions, as applied, violated plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that neither named state official has a sufficient connection to the challenged provisions to be a proper defendant and that the court's order was "incoherent on its face" The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting the "technical issues" raised by the Commonwealth. Both the Secretary of the Commonwealth and its Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation had a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the challenged provisions as required under Ex Parte Young. View "Constitution Party of Pa. v. Cortes" on Justia Law 2016-06-02 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Smith 15-3046 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s063735-0.html Conroy v. Rosenblum 2016-05-26T07:03:03-08:00 2016-05-26T11:29:30-08:00 The Attorney General prepared and filed a modified ballot title following remand from the Supreme Court. In its second trip to the Oregon Supreme Court, two petitioners challenged the modified title. IP 62 applies to public employees (employees) and public employee labor organizations (unions). If adopted by the voters, IP 62 would have amended several provisions of the Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. Petitioners Neel and Forest set out two main objections to the modified caption: (1) they claimed that the phrase "limits public employee union members' obligations" was vague and overbroad and was likely to mislead and confuse voters; (2) the phrase "employees might benefit without sharing bargaining costs" petitioners contended that, as used to describe IP 62, that phrase was "underinclusive, inaccurate, misleading, politically loaded," and failed to reasonably identify the actual major effect of the proposed initiative measure. The Supreme Court found certain of the objections to be well taken, and referred the modified ballot title to the Attorney General for additional modification. View "Conroy v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2016-05-26 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court Martha Lee Walters S063735 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2016/2016-0464.html Ethics First-You Decide Ohio Political Action Comm.. v. DeWine 2016-05-24T10:33:18-08:00 2016-05-24T13:04:07-08:00 Under the prior version of R.C. 3519.01(A), if the attorney general certified the summary of a proposal to change the law or amend the constitution as fair and truthful, that proposal would be filed with the secretary of state and supporters could begin circulating petitions. The section now provides that a petition is transferred to the Ballot Board, not to the secretary of state, for review after certification, and that "[o]nly one proposal of law or constitutional amendment to be proposed by initiative petition shall be contained in an initiative petition to enable the voters to vote on that proposal separately." If the Board determines that the petition contains more than one proposed law or constitutional amendment, it must divide the petition into individual petitions and certify its approval to the attorney general; supporters must submit separate summaries for approval. The Board divided Ethics First's submission into three separate proposed amendments. Ethics First brought a mandamus petition. After holding that it had jurisdiction, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The modest imposition posed by requiring new summaries does not unduly restrict the right of initiative, The "separate petitions" requirement is not content-based. It applies to all petitions. View "Ethics First-You Decide Ohio Political Action Comm.. v. DeWine" on Justia Law 2016-05-24 state Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Per Curiam 2016-0464 http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2016/15sa292.html Carson v. Reiner 2016-05-23T07:30:34-08:00 2016-05-23T08:46:42-08:00 On October 27, 2015,one week before the November 3 regular biennial school board election for Mesa County Valley School District 51, three registered electors of the school district, Kent Carson, James "Gil" Tisue, and Dale Pass, filed a verified petition with the district court, challenging as wrongful the certification of one of the candidates. Carson and two other electors of Mesa County Valley School District 51 sought certiorari review of the district court's order denying their requested relief concerning a school board election. After review, the Supreme Court found that C.R.S. section 1-1-113(1) did not permit a challenge to an election official's certification of a candidate to the ballot, solely on the basis of the certified candidate's qualification, once the period permitted by section 1-4-501(3), C.R.S. (2015), for challenging the qualification of the candidate directly has expired. Therefore the district court's ruling was affirmed. View "Carson v. Reiner" on Justia Law 2016-05-23 state Colorado Colorado Supreme Court Coats 15SA292 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-1504/ Wittman v. Personhuballah 2016-05-23T06:30:23-08:00 2016-05-23T06:39:34-08:00 Voters from Virginia's Congressional District 3 challenged the Commonwealth's 2013 congressional redistricting plan on the ground that the legislature's redrawing of their district was unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Three members of Congress from Virginia intervened to defend the plan. The district court struck down the plan and, after remand from the Supreme Court, again held that the plan was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal for lack of standing. A party invoking federal court jurisdiction can establish Article III standing only by showing that he has suffered an "injury in fact," that the injury is "fairly traceable" to the challenged conduct, and that the injury is likely to be "redressed" by a favorable decision. , Representative Forbes, the Republican incumbent in District 4, has decided to run in District 2, regardless of the litigation's outcome; even if Forbes had standing when he first intervened, he does not have standing now. Representatives Wittman and Brat, the incumbents in Districts 1 and 7, respectively, have not identified any record evidence to support their allegation that the redistricting plan has harmed their prospects of reelection. The allegation of an injury, without more, is not sufficient to satisfy Article III. View "Wittman v. Personhuballah" on Justia Law 2016-05-23 federal U.S. Supreme Court Stephen G. Breyer 14-1504 http://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2016/sc95678.html Peters v. Johns 2016-05-20T13:01:54-08:00 2016-05-20T19:35:29-08:00 Rachel Johns sought the Democratic party's nomination for Missouri State Representative in the District 76. She filed a declaration of candidacy with the Missouri Secretary of State, in which she stated under oath, that she "will qualify" to hold the office of state representative pursuant to the Missouri Constitution's requirements for that office. Respondent Joshua Peters, another candidate for the Democratic party's nomination for Missouri State Representative in the District 76, filed a petition pursuant to section 115.526, RSMo 2000, seeking to disqualify Johns as a candidate and have her name removed from any official election ballot. Peters argued that Johns could not meet the two-year durational voter registration requirement of article III, section 4 of the Missouri Constitution because she did not register to vote until February 4, 2015, which was less than two years before the general election date of November 8, 2016. Although Johns agreed that she did not meet the two-year voter registration requirement, she argued that such requirement is constitutionally invalid as applied to her. The circuit court determined that the voter registration requirement did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. Johns appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed: "The State's justification for the durational voter registration requirement's burden on voting rights is the same as the justification it offers for the burden on Johns herself. The State's interests in regulating the fairness of its elections and ensuring that candidates for state representative demonstrate sufficient seriousness about the electoral systems and social and civic engagement are legitimate. The two-year durational voter registration requirement is rationally related to those interests and a reasonable method of furthering them. Accordingly, article III, section 4 does not violate the First Amendment voting rights of the voters of District 76." View "Peters v. Johns" on Justia Law 2016-05-20 state Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri Mary R. Russell SC95678 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2016/2016-0313.html Ohio Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act 2016-05-18T07:33:39-08:00 2016-05-18T13:24:11-08:00 Relators, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association and others, filed this original petition challenging the petition signatures submitted in support of the Ohio Drug Price Relief Act (Act). The committee responsible for the Act petition (committee) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that a challenge to the specific part-petitions at issue did not fall within the scope of the Court's original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected the committee's jurisdictional arguments and denied the committee's alternative arguments for partial judgment on the pleadings, holding (1) the Court has original jurisdiction over this petition challenge pursuant to Ohio Const. art. II, 1g; and (2) the committee's alternative arguments were unavailing. View "Ohio Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act" on Justia Law 2016-05-18 state Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Per Curiam 2016-0313 2016-0313 http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2016/16sa51.html In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2015 2016-05-16T08:00:34-08:00 2016-05-17T04:47:19-08:00 Initiative #63 would establish a right to a healthy environment in Colorado by amending the state Constitution. Petitioners argued the text of the Initiative filed a motion to the Title Board, arguing the Initiative as written was misleading and contained multiple subjects. The Supreme Court reviewed the Title Board's action setting the title, ballot title and submission clause for the Initiative, and concluded that the Initiative contained a single subject, and that the title clearly expressed the subject and was not misleading. View "In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2015" on Justia Law 2016-05-16 state Colorado Colorado Supreme Court William W. Hood, III 16SA51 http://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2016/da-15-0213.html Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance v. Bullock 2016-05-10T15:04:31-08:00 2016-05-10T17:34:09-08:00 In 2012, Montana voters passed Legislative Referendum 121 (LR 121). The referendum denied certain state services to "illegal aliens." Before the law went into effect, Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance (MIJA) filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from LR 121, arguing that the referendum violated certain constitutional rights and was preempted by federal law. The district court denied Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction as to the majority of LR 121 but enjoined the use of the definition of "illegal alien" so as to preclude the State from using an individual's unlawful entry into the United States as a factor in determining that individual's entitlement to state benefits. The district court subsequently concluded that LR 121 was preempted by federal law. The court then awarded MIJA attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that MIJA has associational standing to challenge LR 121; (2) did not err in concluding that LR 121 is preempted by federal law; and (3) erred in awarding "supplemental relief" to MIJA in the form of attorney fees. View "Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance v. Bullock" on Justia Law 2016-05-10 state Montana Montana Supreme Court Patricia O'Brien Cotter DA 15-0213 http://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2016/114792.html In re Initiative Petition No. 409, State Question No. 785 2016-05-03T08:03:28-08:00 2016-05-03T08:17:41-08:00 At issue before the Oklahoma Supreme Court in this case was a challenge to the legal sufficiency of Initiative Petition No. 409. Respondents-proponents Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma and Bryan Kerr filed Initiative Petition No. 409 with the Oklahoma Secretary of State, seeking to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by repealing Article 28 and adopting Article 28A. Article 28A as proposed, would have allowed wine to be sold in grocery stores. Also under the proposed article, retail package stores could sell any and all items that were sold in convenience stores and grocery stores. Small brewers could sell their products at a brewery or festival or trade show and could sell alcoholic beverages by the drink at a restaurant co-located on the premises of the brewery. Petitioners-opponents Oklahoma Grocers Association and Ron Edgmon filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court to protest: (1) the constitutionality of the petition; and (2) the statutory sufficiency of the gist of the petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the gist of the petition did not fairly describe the proposed constitutional amendment and was invalid. View "In re Initiative Petition No. 409, State Question No. 785" on Justia Law 2016-05-03 state Oklahoma Oklahoma Supreme Court Noma Gurich 114792 http://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/supreme-court/2016/2016-vt-55.html Daims v. Town of Brattleboro 2016-04-29T07:03:21-08:00 2016-04-29T07:19:36-08:00 Prior to a March 3, 2015 town meeting, plaintiffs submitted three separate petitions to amend the Brattleboro town charter. Among other things, the petitions sought to: (1) allow residents sixteen and older to vote at town meetings; (2) allow voters to seek a referendum on articles authorizing the Town to spend more than $2 million; (3) limit the terms of town meeting representatives;1 (4) hold the elections of town representatives and town officials in November rather than March; (5) require employers within the Town to provide two hours paid leave for employees to vote at town meetings; and (6) have the town grand juror enforce the minimum wage and function as a district attorney for the Town. An "information sheet" was prepared by the selectboard, then emailed to town meeting representatives, the media, selectboard members, town staff, and a few other persons who requested it. Among other things, the information sheet stated that: (1) setting term limits would be "anti-democratic" in that it would "ban Brattleboro residents from [t]own meeting[s] because they had attended six years in a row"; (2) moving elections from March to November "would damage the link between . . . important parts of government and leave Brattleboro out of step with the rest of Vermont"; (3) requiring employers to provide paid leave for employees to attend town meetings "would mandate Brattleboro employers to pay employees to attend town meetings in other towns and states" and would impact "Brattleboro residents [who] already face very steep property taxes"; (4) giving powers to the town grand juror, which "is essentially obsolete in this modern era," is unnecessary "because enforcement of laws and ordinances is handled by other elected officials and clear structures"; and (5) "setting separate rules for voter review of budget items over $2 million is confusing and arbitrary." On March 3, 2015, town voters defeated the three petitions. Plaintiffs appealed a superior court order granting the Town summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' lawsuit claiming that the town selectboard unlawfully interfered (by way of the information sheet) with an election on their petitions to amend the town charter. Finding no reversible error in the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Daims v. Town of Brattleboro" on Justia Law 2016-04-29 state Vermont Vermont Supreme Court Eaton 2016 VT 55 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/15-5120/15-5120-2016-04-26.html Holmes v. FEC 2016-04-26T06:31:46-08:00 2016-04-26T14:53:41-08:00 Plaintiff and her husband, eligible voters residing in Florida, filed suit against the FEC, alleging that a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30110, violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The district court declined to certify any questions and granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment. The court did not think that a district court may decline to certify a constitutional question simply because the plaintiff is arguing against Supreme Court precedent so long as the plaintiff mounts a non-frivolous argument in favor of overturning that precedent. Given the court's statement in Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm'n, see note 5 supra, and the uncertain meaning of the footnote in Cal. Med., the court cannot fault the district court for invoking "settled law" in declining to certify plaintiffs' First Amendment question under section 30110. Although the district court declined to certify the Fifth Amendment issue on the ground that plaintiffs' supporting arguments contradicted settled law, the court reached the same result for a different reason – namely, that the issue plaintiffs raise about the Fifth Amendment is a result of regulations, not the Act. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment declining to certify plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment question; the court reversed the district court's decision not to certify plaintiffs' First Amendment question and to grant summary judgment to the Commission; and the court remanded for the district court to certify that question to the court of appeals en banc. View "Holmes v. FEC" on Justia Law 2016-04-26 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Arthur Raymond Randolph 15-5120 http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/2016/150146.html Michigan v. Seewald 2016-04-26T05:00:06-08:00 2016-04-26T09:06:21-08:00 Defendant Paul Seewald and alleged coconspirator Don Yowchuang worked in the district office of former Congressman Thaddeus McCotter during McCotter's 2012 reelection campaign. Michigan election law required McCotter to submit at least 1,000 valid voter signatures before the Secretary of State could certify his placement on the ballot. Defendant and Yowchuang bore some responsibility for collecting those signatures and submitting them to the Secretary of State. The day before the nominating petitions were due, defendant and Yowchuang realized that several of the petitions had not been signed by their circulator, and agreed to sign the petitions as circulators, even though they had not circulated the petitions themselves. Defendant was charged with nine counts of falsely signing nominating petitions (misdemeanor), and one count of conspiring to commit a legal act in an illegal manner (felony). Following a preliminary examination, the trial court bound defendant over to the Wayne Circuit Court as charged. Defendant moved to quash the information on the felony charge. The circuit court granted his motion and dismissed the felony charge against him, concluding that there had been no conspiracy to commit a legal act. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, agreeing that the prosecution could not show an agreement to commit a legal act. The Supreme Court granted the prosecution's application for leave to appeal. The issue before the Supreme Court reduced to what alleged conduct was sufficient to warrant a bindover on the peculiar charge of "conspiring to commit a legal act in an illegal manner." In an "anomalous" reversal of roles, defendant argued that his aim was illicit through and through, that he never agreed to commit any legal act. Rather he conspired to commit an illegal act illegally; and that double illegality should have set him free. The prosecution argued that while defendant's agreed-to means were illegal, his conspiratorial ends were legal; and that legality was sufficient to try him as a felon. The irony was not lost on the Supreme Court. After examining the conspiracy statute, the Court held that the conduct alleged provided probable cause for trial on the charge. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Wayne Circuit Court for reinstatement of the district court's order to bind defendant over and for further proceedings. View "Michigan v. Seewald" on Justia Law 2016-04-25 state Michigan Michigan Supreme Court Larsen 150146 http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2016/16sa48.html In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #73 2016-04-25T07:30:32-08:00 2016-04-25T12:05:32-08:00 Proponents Mike Spalding and David Ottke proposed Initiative #73, which would amend article XXI of the Colorado Constitution to change the procedures leading to and the conduct of recall elections for state and local elective officials. A review and comment hearing was held before representatives of the Offices of Legislative Counsel and Legislative Legal Services. Thereafter, the proponents submitted a final version of their proposed initiative to the Secretary of State for purposes of submission to the Title Board. The Title Board conducted a hearing, concluded that the proposed initiative contained a single subject, and set a title. Petitioner Phillip Hayes filed a motion for rehearing, contending that the title comprised multiple subjects and was misleading, confusing, and inaccurate. Hayes petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for review The Supreme Court concluded that Initiative #73 contained one subject, namely, the manner in which recall elections are triggered and conducted; however, the title set by the Title Board did not satisfy the clear title requirement because it did not alert voters to central elements of the initiative; it was misleading as to other elements; and, as all parties agreed, it unnecessarily recited existing law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Title Board and returned this measure to the Board to fix a new title. View "In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #73" on Justia Law 2016-04-25 state Colorado Colorado Supreme Court Gabriel 16SA48 http://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/2016/scec-16-0000330.html Smallwood v. State 2016-04-22T09:32:20-08:00 2016-04-22T13:08:24-08:00 Plaintiff, a Hawaii resident, filed an election contest complaint arguing (1) Presidential candidate Ted Cruz was not qualified to run for President of the United States and, therefore, the Republican Part was guilty of election fraud; (2) the Office of Elections sponsors racism by serving "whites only"; and (3) Governor David Ige is responsible for rampant bigotry and discrimination within the State. The State moved to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court entered judgment dismissing the complaint, holding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over his complaint or the relief he sought. View "Smallwood v. State " on Justia Law 2016-04-21 state Hawaii Supreme Court of Hawaii Per Curiam SCEC-16-0000330 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s063863.html Cross v. Rosenblum 2016-04-21T07:17:36-08:00 2016-04-21T14:58:56-08:00 Petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 61 (2016) (IP 61), arguing that the ballot title did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035. IP 61 implicated the use of public funds to pay for abortions. As written, the Supreme Court found that the summary to the Initiative Petition did not address the limitation on access to abortion that would directly follow from the enactment of IP 61. "The Attorney General must revise the summary to describe that limitation." As written, the Court also found that the summary did not address the broad definition of the term "abortion," but, with regard to contraception, it explained what the term abortion excluded, rather than what it included. "The summary provides that the measure '[d]efines 'abortion' to exclude termination of ectopic pregnancy, removing dead fetus/embryo, or contraceptives that 'inhibit or prevent conception.' In taking that approach, the Attorney General uses the literal terms of the measure, but obscures the meaning of the term 'abortion' rather than conveying the practical information that ORS 250.035 required. The Court referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Cross v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2016-04-21 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court Martha Lee Walters S063863 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-232/ Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n 2016-04-20T06:30:24-08:00 2016-04-20T08:09:30-08:00 After the 2010 census, Arizona's Redistricting Commission, with two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Independent, redrew legislative districts. The initial plan had a 4.07% maximum population deviation from absolute equality of districts, but a statistician reported that the Justice Department might not approve the plan under the Voting Rights Act requirement that a new plan, compared to the existing plan, not diminish the number of districts in which minority groups can elect their preferred candidates. The Commission adopted a revised plan with an 8.8% deviation on a 3-to-2 vote, with Republican members dissenting. Under the final plan, a Republican-leaning district became more competitive. The Justice Department approved the plan as consistent with the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the plan, concluding that the "deviations were primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act . . . though partisanship played some role." Mathematical perfection is not required. Deviations may be justified by legitimate considerations, including compactness and contiguity, and state interests in maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions, competitive balance among political parties, and, before the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision, compliance with the Act. Because the deviation here is under 10%, objectors cannot rely on numbers to show a constitutional violation, but must show that it is more probable than not that the deviation reflects predominantly illegitimate reapportionment factors. Objectors failed to meet that burden: the deviations reflected efforts to achieve compliance with the Act, not to secure advantage for the Democratic Party. View "Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n" on Justia Law 2016-04-20 federal U.S. Supreme Court Stephen G. Breyer 14-232 http://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/2016/16-0228.html Benjamin v. Walker 2016-04-19T11:04:25-08:00 2016-04-19T11:59:28-08:00 Petitioner was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and a candidate seeking re-election to the Court. Petitioner began his election campaign as a "traditional candidate" - a candidate financed by contributions from supporters - but subsequently decided to enter the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Program (the Act) and became a "participating candidate" under the Act. The West Virginia State Elections Commission certified Petitioner's campaign for public funding under the Act. Respondent, a traditional candidate seeking election to the Court, appealed the Commission's decision. The circuit court ruled in favor of Respondent, concluding that the Commission's certification of Petitioner was clearly erroneous and violated Petitioner's constitutional rights to free speech and substantive due process. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and reinstated the decision of the Commission, holding that the Commission correctly concluded that Petitioner satisfied all statutory requirements to be certified for public funding under the Act. View "Benjamin v. Walker" on Justia Law 2016-04-19 state West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Keadle 16-0228 http://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/2016/16-0226.html Wooten v. Walker 2016-04-19T11:04:24-08:00 2016-04-19T11:51:40-08:00 Petitioner was a candidate seeking election to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and was a "participating candidate" under the west Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Program. In his application to the West Virginia State Elections Commission to be certified to receive public financing, Petitioner timely filed his final report and all required substantive information but filed his sworn statement one day late. The Commission certified Petitioner's campaign for public financing. Respondent, a non-participating candidate seeking election to the Court, challenged Petitioner's certification. The circuit court concluded that the Commissioner's certification of Petitioner for public financing of his candidacy under West Virginia Code 3-12-1 was not valid. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission has discretion to certify a participating candidate for public financing notwithstanding the candidate's failure to meet the time deadlines set forth in the West Virginia Code of State Rules where the candidate has substantially complied with all requirements set forth in the Act and the Rules and where there is no showing of prejudice. View "Wooten v. Walker" on Justia Law 2016-04-19 state West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Keadle 16-0226 http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/2016/2016-me-57.html Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife 2016-04-14T07:02:00-08:00 2016-04-14T11:52:35-08:00 Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting (MFBH) is a Maine ballot question committee that was a proponent of November 2014 Ballot Question 1 concerning bear hunting and trapping. As early as September 2013, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife used agency resources to communicate with the public in opposition to Question 1. MFBH filed a complaint against the Department alleging that the Department's campaign activities constituted an ultra vires expenditure of public funds. In November 2014, Maine voters defeated the ballot question. The Department subsequently filed a motion to dismiss MFBH's complaint on the grounds of mootness and standing. In March 2015, the superior court dismissed the complaint as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the case is moot and that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. View "Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law 2016-04-14 state Maine Maine Supreme Judicial Court Leigh Ingalls Saufley Saufley http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/15-3582/15-3582-2016-04-12.html Frank v. Walker 2016-04-12T13:30:52-08:00 2016-04-12T13:52:55-08:00 In 2011 Wisconsin enacted a statute requiring voters to present photographic identification. A federal district judge found violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and enjoined its application. The Seventh Circuit reversed. After the Supreme Court declined review, the state amended Act 23 to require acceptance of veterans' IDs. The district court declined to address plaintiffs' remaining argument that some persons qualified to vote are entitled to relief because they face daunting obstacles to obtaining acceptable photo ID. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part; it did not previously hold that persons unable to get a photo ID with reasonable effort lack a serious grievance. The right to vote is personal and is not defeated by the fact that 99% of other people can secure the necessary credentials easily. Under Wisconsin's law, people who do not have qualifying photo ID cannot vote, even if it is impossible for them to get such an ID. Plaintiffs want relief from that prohibition, not from the general application of Act 23. The district court should permit the parties to explore how the state's system works today before considering plaintiffs' remaining substantive contentions. View "Frank v. Walker" on Justia Law 2016-04-12 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Frank Hoover Easterbrook 15-3582 http://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/2016/20160077.html Utah Republican Party v. Cox 2016-04-09T10:27:32-08:00 2016-04-11T19:34:00-08:00 The United States District Court for the District of Utah certified questions of law to the Supreme Court regarding Qualified Political Parties (QPP). The first question asked whether Utah law requires that a QPP permit its members to seek its nomination by either or both of the methods set forth in Utah Code 20A-9-407 and 20A-9-408 or whether a QPP may preclude a member from seeking the party's nomination by gathering signatures under section 20A-9-408. The second question asked whether the Lieutenant Governor must treat a registered political party (RPP) that has selected to be designated as a QPP as a RPP under Utah law. The Supreme Court answered (1) Utah Code 20A-9-101 requires that QPP party members may choose the method of candidacy qualification; and (2) the certified question regarding the Lieutenant Governor's obligations is hypothetical and not ripe for decision. View "Utah Republican Party v. Cox" on Justia Law 2016-04-08 state Utah Utah Supreme Court Per Curiam 20160077 http://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/2016/16-0223-0.html State ex rel. Judicial Investigation Comm'n v. Board of Ballot Comm'rs 2016-04-07T11:03:47-08:00 2016-04-07T14:11:07-08:00 The Judicial Investigation Commission (JIC) requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus against the Putnam County Board of Ballot Commissioners (Board) to remove Troy Sexton from the May 2016 ballot as a candidate for the office of magistrate in Putnam County. The JIC based is request upon its determination that Sexton had been convicted of a "misdemeanor involving moral turpitude". The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of mandamus and directed the Board to remove Sexton as a magisterial candidate from the election ballot, holding that Sexton's misdemeanor conviction of reporting a false emergency constituted a conviction of a "misdemeanor involving moral turpitude" such that he was not qualified to serve as a magistrate pursuant to the requirements for that office set forth in W. Va. Code 50-1-4. View "State ex rel. Judicial Investigation Comm'n v. Board of Ballot Comm'rs" on Justia Law 2016-04-07 state West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Robin Jean Davis 16-0223 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s063820.html Vaandering v. Rosenblum 2016-04-07T07:03:04-08:00 2016-04-07T08:45:18-08:00 Two sets of petitioners sought review of the certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 69 (2016) (IP 69). IP 69, if enacted, would have altered the rights and obligations that public employers, their employees, and the unions representing those employees owe each other under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA). IP 69, if enacted, would: (1) divide public employees within a bargaining unit into two groups (union and nonunion employees) and would provide different means for determining the employment terms (wages, benefits, and other employment terms) for each group; and (2) would determine a union's obligation to represent union and nonunion employees within a bargaining unit equally and nonunion employees' corresponding obligation to make "payments in lieu of dues." Both sets of petitioners raised essentially the same challenge to the caption of the Initiative, although their specific arguments differed. "At bottom, both sets of petitioners argue that the caption is too narrow and focuses on only some of the measure's major effects, to the exclusion of other major effects." The Supreme Court agreed that the caption, the "yes" and "no" vote result statements, and the summary required modification. The Ballot title was referred to Attorney General for such modification. View "Vaandering v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2016-04-07 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court Rives Kistler S063820 http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/f070813.html County of Kern v. T.C.E.F., Inc. 2016-04-05T14:30:19-08:00 2016-04-05T19:00:30-08:00 The County filed suit against defendants seeking to enjoin the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary in an unincorporated area of Kern County. Defendants appealed the trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction. The court interpreted the phrase "entirely repeal the ordinance," pursuant to Elections Code section 9144, to mean that a board of supervisors must (1) revoke the protested ordinance in all its parts and (2) not take additional action that has the practical effect of implementing the essential feature of the protested ordinance. Applying this interpretation, the court concluded that the board of supervisors did more than entirely repeal the protested ordinance banning dispensaries when it revoked that ordinance and took the additional action of repealing the 2009 ordinance, which authorized dispensaries. The practical effect of repealing the 2009 ordinance was to prohibit dispensaries, which was essentially the same as the ban of dispensaries protested by voters. Therefore, the court concluded that the County violated section 9145 by repealing the 2009 ordinance and, as a result, the court regarded the 2009 ordinance as remaining in full force and effect. Accordingly, defendants' dispensary, which is located in a commercial zone, remains an authorized use and the County cannot establish a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claim that defendants were operating an unauthorized dispensary. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment. View "County of Kern v. T.C.E.F., Inc." on Justia Law 2016-04-05 state California California Court of Appeal Donald R. Franson, Jr. F070813 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-940/ Evenwel v. Abbott 2016-04-04T06:30:25-08:00 2016-04-04T09:08:33-08:00 Under the one-person, one-vote principle, jurisdictions must design legislative districts with equal populations. In state and local legislative districting, states may deviate from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives. Where the maximum population deviation between the largest and smallest district is less than 10%, a state or local legislative map presumptively complies with the rule. Texas, like all other states, uses total-population numbers from the decennial census when drawing legislative districts. After the 2010 census, Texas adopted a State Senate map that has a maximum total-population deviation of 8.04%. However, measured by a voter-population baseline—eligible voters or registered voters—the map's maximum population deviation exceeds 40%. Objectors unsuccessfully sought an injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Framers endorsed allocating House seats to states based on total population. Debating what would become the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress reconsidered the proper basis for apportionment and rejected proposals to allocate House seats to states based on voter population. A voter-population rule is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent that states and localities may comply with the one-person, one-vote principle by designing districts with equal total populations. Adopting voter-eligible apportionment would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have long followed. Representatives serve all residents. Nonvoters have an important stake in policy debates and in constituent services. View "Evenwel v. Abbott" on Justia Law 2016-04-04 federal U.S. Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg 14-940 http://law.justia.com/cases/south-dakota/supreme-court/2016/27485.html Ageton v. Jackley 2016-03-31T05:02:39-08:00 2016-03-31T13:28:56-08:00 Then-State Representative Steve Hickey sponsored an initiated measure to be certified for the November 2016 general election that would, if adopted, impose a maximum finance charge against certain lenders for certain types of loans. On April 1, 2015, Hickey submitted a copy of the final version to Attorney General Marty Jackley. On May 27, 2015, Jackley filed the title and explanation that he drafted in regard to this measure with the Secretary of State. On June 5, 2015, Erin Ageton, an opponent of the measure, filed an application for a writ of certiorari, asserting that Jackley did not comply with his legal duties under S.D. Codified Laws 12-13-25.1 because his explanation failed to education the voters that the purpose and effect of the measure was to ban short-term lending in South Dakota. The circuit court denied the application for a writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the explanation was adequate under section 12-13-25.1. View "Ageton v. Jackley" on Justia Law 2016-03-30 state South Dakota South Dakota Supreme Court Lori S. Wilbur 27485 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s063787.html Nearman v. Rosenblum 2016-03-24T08:32:28-08:00 2016-03-24T09:58:49-08:00 Petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 51 (2016) (IP 51). IP 51 was a proposed constitutional amendment that, if adopted by the voters, would have changed current voter registration methods for federal, state, and local elections in Oregon by requiring in-person registration, thereby eliminating "motor-voter," online, and mail registration options. Its passage also would result in the expiration within 10 years of all current Oregon voter registrations and establish other new requirements that must be satisfied in order for Oregonians to register to vote. Petitioners argued that the ballot title did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). After review, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed that IP 51, as then-drafted, did not satisfy the requirements of Oregon law and referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Nearman v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2016-03-24 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court David V. Brewer S063787 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s063735.html Conroy v. Rosenblum 2016-03-24T08:32:27-08:00 2016-03-24T09:58:23-08:00 Petitioners seek review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 62 (2016) (IP 62). IP 62 applied to public employees and public employee labor organizations. If adopted by the voters, IP 62 would amend several provisions of the Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA). Petitioners argued that the ballot title did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). After review, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed that IP 62, as then-drafted, did not satisfy the requirements of Oregon law and referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Conroy v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2016-03-24 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court Martha Lee Walters S063735 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/15-3793/15-3793-2016-03-22.html United States v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots 2016-03-22T08:30:52-08:00 2016-03-22T14:51:36-08:00 In 2010 the IRS began to pay unusual attention to applications for exemption from federal taxes under Internal Revenue Code 501(c) coming from groups with certain political affiliations. It used "inappropriate criteria" to identify organizations with "Tea Party'" in their names, expanded the criteria to include "Patriots and 9/12," and gave heightened scrutiny to organizations concerned with "government spending, government debt or taxes," "lobbying to 'make America a better place to live[,]'" or "criticiz[ing] how the country is being run[.]" The IRS used a "'Be On the Lookout' listing" for more than 18 months. Applicants flagged by the criteria were sent to a "team of specialists," where they experienced significant delays and requests for unnecessary information. The IRS demanded that many groups provide names of donors; a list of issues important to the organization and its position regarding such issues; and political affiliations. After the release of the Inspector General's report, the plaintiffs sued, citing the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the First and Fifth Amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code's prohibition on the unauthorized inspection of confidential "return information," 26 U.S.C. 6103(a), 7431. Plaintiffs sought discovery of basic information relevant to class certification. The district court ordered production of "Lookout" lists. A year later, the IRS had not complied, but sought a writ of mandamus. The Sixth Circuit denied that petition and ordered the IRS to comply. View "United States v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots" on Justia Law 2016-03-22 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Raymond M. Kethledge 15-3793 http://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/2016/2015-0340.html Deborah Sumner v. New Hampshire Secretary of State 2016-03-22T05:05:55-08:00 2016-03-22T10:23:22-08:00 Pro-se plaintiff Deborah Sumner appealed a superior court order denying her Right-to-Know Law request put to the New Hampshire Secretary of State. The order also granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. Sumner sought to inspect ballots cast in the town of Jaffrey during the 2012 general election. The Secretary denied her request, citing RSA 659:95, II (Supp. 2015), which exempted ballots which have been cast from the Right-to-Know Law. On appeal, Sumner argued that RSA 659:95, II, along with RSA 660:16, II (2008) and RSA 669:33, II (2008) (collectively, "the ballot exemption statutes"), violated several articles of the New Hampshire Constitution. After review, the Supreme Court held that the ballot exemption statutes did not violate the State constitution, and, therefore, affirmed. View "Deborah Sumner v. New Hampshire Secretary of State" on Justia Law 2016-03-22 state New Hampshire New Hampshire Supreme Court Gary E. Hicks 2015-0340 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/15-2005/15-2005-2016-03-11.html United States v. Smith 2016-03-11T07:30:47-08:00 2016-03-11T07:48:31-08:00 Smith was appointed to the Illinois House of Representatives to complete an unfinished term. During his campaign to be elected in his own right, his assistant, "Pete," alerted the FBI that Smith might be corrupt. Pete began recording conversations. At the FBI's suggestion, Pete told Smith that a constituent would provide $7,000 if Smith wrote a letter supporting her state grant application. There was no such woman; the money would come from the FBI. Smith wrote the letter and received $7,000. Smith used some of the money to pay campaign staff; a search of his home turned up the rest. At Smith's trial for violating 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B) and 1951, the prosecutor introduced the recorded conversations with Pete. Neither side called Pete as a witness: he may have been stealing from the FBI. Pete said that he would not testify, asserting his constitutional self-incrimination privilege. The prosecutor did not seek use immunity; defense counsel did not call Pete to see whether the judge would honor his privilege assertion. Questioning why Smith did not raise the hearsay doctrine, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, rejecting an argument under the Confrontation Clause. If the statements are not hearsay, they are not testimonial. Smith was not convicted on hearsay or of out-of-court testimonial statements. Smith's own words and deeds convicted him. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law 2016-03-11 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Frank Hoover Easterbrook 15-2005 http://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/2016/20150665.html Poulton v. Cox 2016-03-04T09:03:36-08:00 2016-03-06T19:51:54-08:00 Petitioners, as members of Utah Term Limits NOW!, sponsored an initiative application in which Petitioners sought to initiate legislation imposing term limits on persons appointed by the Governor to state boards and commissions. The Lieutenant Governor rejected the initiative application. Petitioners filed a petition for extraordinary writ asking the Supreme Court to compel the Lieutenant Governor to rescind and withdraw his rejection of Petitioners' application. After filing their petition, Petitioners ceased efforts to place the proposed initiative on the ballot. Thereafter, the Lieutenant Governor filed a suggestion of mootness. In response, Petitioners asked the Court to resolve the issues based on the "public interest" exception to the mootness doctrine. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for extraordinary writ as moot and held that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply in this case. View "Poulton v. Cox" on Justia Law 2016-03-03 state Utah Utah Supreme Court Himonas 20150665 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/14-5297/14-5297-2016-03-04.html FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate 2016-03-04T07:31:23-08:00 2016-03-04T21:28:46-08:00 The FEC filed suit alleging that former Senator Larry E. Craig, his campaign committee, and the committee's Treasurer converted campaign funds to the Senator's personal use in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4). The district court granted summary judgment to the FEC and ordered the Senator to disgorge $197,535 and to pay a civil penalty of $45,000. Appellants had spent campaign funds to pay legal fees the Senator incurred in connection with efforts to withdraw his guilty plea to a criminal charge of disorderly conduct. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that appellants unlawfully converted campaign contributions to personal use by spending them on Senator Craig's effort to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering disgorgement to the United States Treasury and payment of the civil penalty. View "FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate" on Justia Law 2016-03-04 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Merrick B. Garland 14-5297 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s063766.html Unger v. Rosenblum 2016-03-03T08:06:25-08:00 2016-03-03T12:39:40-08:00 Ben Unger, LaToya Fick and Carmen Rubio petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 65. IP 65, if enacted, would establish a "High School Graduation and College and Career Readiness Fund" (Readiness Fund) within the state General Fund for the purposes of—as the title of the fund suggests-improving high school graduation rates and college and career readiness. The measure would require the legislature, beginning in 2017, to "appropriate, allocate or otherwise make available" to the fund not less than $800 per student per year. Thereafter, the measure would require that the amounts appropriated, allocated, or otherwise made available be increased in accordance with Executive Order No. 14-14. Petitioner Unger argued the certified ballot title is deficient in several respects pertaining to the "no" vote result statement and the summary. Petitioners Fick and Rubio also challenge the ballot title, arguing that the caption does not reasonably identify the subject of IP 65, that the 'yes' and 'no' vote result statements do not accurately identify the consequences of voting one way or the other, and that the summary is deficient in that it carries forward problems with the caption and the result statements. After review, the Supreme Court rejected petitioner Unger's contention without discussion, but agreed with petitioners Fick and Rubio's contentions, and referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Unger v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2016-03-03 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court Jack L. Landau S063766 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s063675.html Kendoll v. Rosenblum 2016-03-03T08:06:22-08:00 2016-03-03T12:33:04-08:00 Petitioner Cynthia Kendoll petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 52. IP 52, if enacted, would supplement federal immigration law. Federal immigration law made it unlawful for "'a person or other entity * * * to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.'" Congress established a website, E-Verify, that permitted employers to determine whether the documentation that the employer reviewed in completing Form I-9 was authentic or, matched records on file with the federal government. Generally, federal immigration laws did not require employers to use E-Verify. Using E-Verify established a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not violate federal immigration laws even if it later turned out that the employer in fact hired an unauthorized alien. IP 52 would add a state licensing requirement that employers use E-Verify to determine their employees' eligibility to work. Petitioner challenged the ballot title's caption, the "yes" and "no" result statements, and the summary. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with petitioner that the caption failed to substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a). The ballot title was referred back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Kendoll v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2016-03-03 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court Rives Kistler S063675 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/14-5249/14-5249-2016-03-01.html Independence Institute v. FEC 2016-03-01T08:01:05-08:00 2016-03-01T20:39:34-08:00 The Institute, a Section 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, filed suit against the FEC, challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 52 U.S.C. 20104(f). The district court denied the Institute's request to convene a three-judge district court pursuant to the statutory provision that requires three-judge district courts for constitutional challenges to the BCRA. On the merits, the district court held that the Institute's claim was unavailing under McConnell v. FEC, and Citizens United V. FEC. The Institute appealed. The court concluded that, because the Institute's complaint raises a First Amendment challenge to a provision of BCRA, 28 U.S.C. 2284(a) entitles it to a three-judge district court. In this case, the Institute's attempt to advance its as-applied First Amendment challenge is not "essentially fictitious, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, and obviously without merit." Therefore, section 2284 "entitles" the Institute to make its case "before a three-judge district court." Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Independence Institute v. FEC" on Justia Law 2016-03-01 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Brett M. Kavanaugh 14-5249 http://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2016/2016-ia-00148-sct.html Wilson v. Hosemann 2016-02-25T12:02:21-08:00 2016-02-25T12:09:18-08:00 Dr. Willie Wilson timely submitted his petition and qualification papers to the Mississippi State Democratic Executive Committee (the "Party"), to run for President in the 2016 Democratic primary. The Party rejected Dr. Wilson's petition but later reconsidered and requested the Mississippi Secretary of State to place Dr. Wilson's name on the primary ballot. But, because absentee and overseas military voting had already begun, the Secretary of State refused. The Circuit Court of Hinds County refused to grant Dr. Wilson an injunction and he appealed. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court found that Dr. Wilson's due process rights were violated, so the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wilson v. Hosemann" on Justia Law 2016-02-25 state Mississippi Supreme Court of Mississippi Jess H. Dickinson 2016-IA-00148-SCT 2016-EC-00163-SCT http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/14-4008/14-4008-2016-02-24.html Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus 2016-02-24T09:01:02-08:00 2016-02-24T09:22:14-08:00 Ohio prohibited persons from disseminating false information about a political candidate in campaign materials during the campaign season "knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate." Ohio Rev. Code 3517.21(B)(10), specifically prohibiting false statements about a candidate's voting record. The statute established a multi-step complaint process involving the Elections Commission, culminating in referral to a prosecutor. If convicted in subsequent state court proceedings, violators could be sentenced to prison or fined. In 2010, then-Congressman Driehaus filed a complaint alleging that SBA issued a press release accusing him of voting for "taxpayer-funded abortion" by voting for the Affordable Care Act. The Commission issued a probable cause finding. SBA sued Driehaus and state officials. That case was consolidated with a similar case, adding the Commission as a defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court found the case ripe as a facial challenge, despite the dismissal of Commission proceedings. On remand, the district court granted SBA summary judgment, holding that Ohio's political false statement laws were content-based restrictions that fail strict scrutiny review. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, characterizing the laws as content-based restrictions that burden core protected political speech, not narrowly tailored to achieve state interests in promoting fair elections. View "Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus" on Justia Law 2016-02-24 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit R[ansey] Guy Cole, Jr. 14-4008 http://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2016/45-15.html Fraternal Order of Police v. Montgomery County 2016-02-23T07:01:32-08:00 2016-02-23T19:05:48-08:00 The complaint in this case was brought both individually and as a class action. Plaintiffs, a police union and others, asserted that Montgomery County, a charter county, was not authorized to use its fiscal and human resources to urge approval of a law enacted by the County Council that limited bargaining rights and that had been petitioned to referendum. The circuit court concluded that the government speech doctrine does not constitute an affirmative authority for government to advocate and spend money on political campaigns. The Court of Special Appeals, however, concluded that the County had inherent power to use properly appropriated funds for a governmental purpose and that advocacy on the non-partisan ballot measure was a governmental purpose. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that a charter county is authorized to use its resources to encourage the electorate of the County to support or opposed a measure that may have a significant impact on the operations of the County government. View "Fraternal Order of Police v. Montgomery County" on Justia Law 2016-02-23 state Maryland Maryland Court of Appeals Wilner 45/15 http://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/2016/2015-026.html Olson v. Town of Grafton 2016-02-12T06:02:25-08:00 2016-02-12T06:34:47-08:00 In 2015, the Town of Grafton's three-member selectboard reviewed and discussed the 36 warrant articles to be placed on the ballot for the annual Town meeting scheduled for March 10, including 20 articles that plaintiffs had petitioned to include on the ballot. At the January 20 meeting, one selectboard member moved that the ballot include the phrase "the Selectmen do not recommend this article" relative to each of the plaintiffs' warrant articles. The motion passed unanimously. On March 5, the plaintiffs filed their petition for injunctive and declaratory relief. The trial court held a final hearing on offers of proof and, on March 9, denied the petition, concluding that RSA 32:5, V-a authorized the Town to place recommendations on any warrant article. Plaintiff Jeremy Olson appealed a superior court order denying a petition he and co-plaintiffs, Thomas Ploszaj, Christopher Kairnes, and Howard Boucher filed for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Town. On appeal, Olson argued that the trial court erroneously determined that it was lawful for the Town to include on the official ballot for the annual Town meeting the phrase, "The Selectmen do not recommend this article," below each of the plaintiffs' 20 warrant articles, which the plaintiffs had petitioned to include on the ballot. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Olson v. Town of Grafton" on Justia Law 2016-02-12 state New Hampshire New Hampshire Supreme Court James P. Bassett 2015-0264 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/14-3678/14-3678-2016-02-11.html Ohio Council 8 v. Husted 2016-02-11T09:01:01-08:00 2016-02-11T11:57:14-08:00 Ohio elects its state judges through a hybrid process. Judicial candidates are first selected through partisan primary elections. On the general-election ballot, their names show no partisan affiliation, even though judicial candidates may affiliate with political parties throughout their campaigns. The Ohio Democratic Party, three individuals who were candidates for state court judgeships in the 2010 election, and a statewide labor organization, challenged the law's constitutionality as burdening their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by precluding candidates from being associated with their political parties in the general election. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, rejecting the claims. The burden is minimal and is outweighed by Ohio's interest in minimizing partisanship in judicial elections. Judicial candidates are not restricted from associating with political parties in other contexts. Political parties may even communicate with voters outside of polling places on the day of the general election and distribute sample ballots identifying their preferred candidates, which voters may take with them into the voting booth. View "Ohio Council 8 v. Husted" on Justia Law 2016-02-11 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit John M. Rogers 14-3678 http://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2016/cv-16-18.html Haile v. Johnston 2016-02-11T08:00:31-08:00 2016-02-11T13:36:40-08:00 In 1995, Josh Johnston pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor hot-check violation. In 2014, Johnston filed to run as a candidate for Celburne County Sheriff. Brian Haile, a registered voter in Cleburne County, filed a petition for declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus requesting that the circuit court find the misdemeanor hot-check violation an infamous crime that rendered Johnston ineligible to run for or hold public office. The circuit court ruled that Johnston's previous conviction rendered him eligible to run for or hold public office. Later in 2014, the circuit court entered an order sealing Johnston's misdemeanor conviction. In 2015, Johnson filed as a candidate for Cleburne County Sheriff. Haile again filed a petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus alleging that Johnston was ineligible to serve and that the court's 2014 order controlled. The circuit court dismissed Haile's petition, concluding that Johnston's record was sealed and expunged, and Johnston was therefore eligible to run for and hold public office. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-1417 dictates that it is as if Johnston never had the misdemeanor conviction, and therefore, Johnston is eligible to run for and hold office. View "Haile v. Johnston" on Justia Law 2016-02-11 state Arkansas Arkansas Supreme Court Karen R. Baker CV-16-18 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-2001/14-2001-2016-02-09.html National Federation of the Blind v. Lamone 2016-02-09T12:00:53-08:00 2016-02-09T13:05:32-08:00 Maryland allows any voter to vote via absentee ballot. Plaintiffs filed suit under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, against state election officials under federal law, alleging that marking a hardcopy ballot by hand without assistance is impossible for voters with various disabilities, and that they have therefore been denied meaningful access to absentee voting. Defendants argue that even if absentee voting is not fully accessible, the full accessibility of Maryland's in-person polling places provides disabled voters with meaningful access to voting. The court concluded that defendants' proposed focus is overbroad and would undermine the purpose of the ADA and its implementing regulations. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that by effectively requiring disabled individuals to rely on the assistance of others to vote absentee, defendants have not provided plaintiffs with meaningful access to Maryland's absentee voting program. The court also concluded that plaintiffs' proposed use of the online ballot marking tool is a reasonable modification to Maryland's absentee voting policies and procedures. The court agreed with the the district court that defendants have not met their burden to show that plaintiffs' proposed modification - use of the online ballot marking tool - would fundamentally alter Maryland's voting program. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Federation of the Blind v. Lamone" on Justia Law 2016-02-09 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Floyd 14-2001 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/14-6164/14-6164-2016-02-08.html United States v. Robinson 2016-02-08T09:30:53-08:00 2016-02-08T11:08:51-08:00 Martin, Kentucky Mayor Thomasine Robinson, sought reelection. Her challenger, Howell, won by three votes. Husband James confronted and threatened to kill Howell; he was convicted in state court of terroristic threatening and menacing. Thomasine was charged with bribery, coercion, and intimidation. Testimony indicated that: Thomasine gave a woman $20 to vote for her and coerced voters to vote for her by absentee ballot; that her son Steven attempted to intimidate a voter; that James paid $10 for a vote; and that James gave an individual money with which to purchase votes. The jury returned a guilty verdict on conspiracy and vote-buying (52 U.S.C. 10307(c)) charges, but the court granted James acquittal on the conspiracy charge. Thomasine was convicted of vote-buying and conspiracy to violate civil rights (18 U.S.C. 241); Steven was found guilty of conspiracy and two counts of vote-buying, but acquitted of a third count. The court assessed a leadership enhancement to James for directing another to purchase votes and an obstruction of justice enhancement for behaving menacingly during a trial recess and sentenced him to an above-guidelines 40 months in prison. Steven was sentenced to 21 months and three years of supervised release, with a condition requiring him to abstain from the consumption of alcohol. Thomasine was sentenced to 33 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law 2016-02-08 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Gilbert Stroud Merritt, Jr. 14-6164 14-6165 14-6141 14-6142 http://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2016/s-15600.html Seybert v. Alsworth 2016-02-05T10:00:09-08:00 2016-02-05T10:14:10-08:00 A group of Lake and Peninsula Borough voters filed suit against two local elected officials, alleging various violations of state and local conflict of interest laws and the common law conflict of interest doctrine. The officials moved for summary judgment on the ground that the voters failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The superior court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings so that the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) could review several of the voters' claims. In doing so the court relied in part on case law involving the separate doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which allowed a court to stay proceedings to give the relevant administrative agency an initial pass at the claims. The matter came before the Supreme Court, and it reverse the superior court's order after review, finding that because the voters were not required to exhaust administrative remedies and because the order staying the proceedings could not be affirmed on independent grounds. View "Seybert v. Alsworth" on Justia Law 2016-02-05 state Alaska Alaska Supreme Court Joel H. Bolger S-15600 http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/c073482.html White v. City of Stockton 2016-02-05T09:00:43-08:00 2016-02-05T09:53:54-08:00 Plaintiff Ralph White sought to remove Ann Johnston as mayor of the City of Stockton and to enjoin placing her name on the municipal election ballot of June 2012 for reelection as mayor. White contended Johnston was ineligible to sit as mayor and to run for reelection under section 606 of the Stockton City Charter. Because Johnston had served two terms as a council member prior to being elected mayor, White asserted she was ineligible to serve as mayor and to run for reelection. The trial court denied White's petition for an alternative writ. Johnston's name was placed on the June 2012 ballot, as was White's, who also was running for mayor. Johnston received the most votes in the election and qualified for a runoff election. White did not qualify. That November, Johnston lost the general election. The trial court denied White's petition for writ of mandate, finding section 606 was ambiguous because it did not clearly and plainly impose a cumulative term limit. It then found the City's construction of section 606 as not imposing a cumulative limit was reasonable and not clearly erroneous in light of the official ballot pamphlet used when the voters adopted section 606 and the City's consistent practice of not reading section 606 as imposing a cumulative limit. The City of argued, and the trial court found, the measure did not impose a cumulative limit. The Court of Appeal agreed with the City and affirmed the judgment. View "White v. City of Stockton" on Justia Law 2016-02-05 state California California Court of Appeal George Nicholson C073482 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/14-1463/14-1463-2016-02-04.html Independence Institute v. Williams 2016-02-04T09:01:29-08:00 2016-02-04T09:15:01-08:00 The Independence Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, conducts research and educates the public on public policy. During the 2014 Colorado gubernatorial campaign, the Institute intended to air an advertisement on Denver-area television that was critical of the state's failure to audit its new health care insurance exchange. The Institute was concerned that the ad qualified as an "electioneering communication" under the Colorado Constitution and, therefore, to run it the Institute would have to disclose the identity of financial donors who funded the ad. The Institute resisted the disclosure requirement, arguing that the First Amendment prohibited disclosure of donors to an ad that is purely about a public policy issue and is unrelated to a campaign. The Tenth Circuit court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Colorado Secretary of State. "Colorado's disclosure requirements, as applied to this advertisement, meet the exacting scrutiny standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. . . . The provision serves the legitimate interest of informing the public about the financing of ads that mention political candidates in the final weeks of a campaign, and its scope is sufficiently tailored to require disclosure only of funds earmarked for the financing of such ads." View "Independence Institute v. Williams" on Justia Law 2016-02-04 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Timothy M. Tymkovich 14-1463 http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2016/91551-2.html Spokane Entrepreneurial Ctr. v. Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution 2016-02-04T08:16:41-08:00 2016-02-04T08:54:45-08:00 In 2013, Envision Spokane gathered enough signatures to place a local initiative on the ballot that would establish a "Community Bill of Rights." Petitioners filed this declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of the Envision Initiative. The petitioners included Spokane County, individual residents of Spokane (including two city council members acting in their individual capacities), for-profit corporations and companies in Spokane (including Pearson Packaging Systems and the utility company A vista Corporation), and nonprofit associations (including the Spokane Association of Realtors, the Spokane Building Owners and Managers Association, the Spokane Home Builders Association, and local chambers of commerce). The trial judge ruled that (1) petitioners had standing to challenge the initiative and (2) the initiative exceeded the scope of the local initiative power. She therefore instructed that it be struck from the ballot. Envision Spokane appealed, and the Court of Appeals held that petitioners lacked standing and ordered the initiative be put on the next available ballot. The first issue before the Supreme Court in this case was who has standing to bring those types of challenges. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals created new limits on who can bring such challenges, but the Supreme Court reversed and adhered to existing standards because they adequately ensured that only those affected by an ordinance may challenge it. Applying those existing standards, the Supreme Court found that petitioners in this case had standing to bring this challenge. The second issue in this case was the substance of the petitioners' challenge: whether the initiative's subject matter fell within the scope of authority granted to local residents. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that this local initiative exceeds the scope of local initiative power and should not have been put on the ballot. View "Spokane Entrepreneurial Ctr. v. Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution" on Justia Law 2016-02-04 state Washington Washington Supreme Court Susan Owens 91551-2 http://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2016/sc14-1899.html Brinkmann v. Francois 2016-02-04T08:01:38-08:00 2016-02-04T12:42:05-08:00 Tyron Francois, a Democrat, filed paperwork to run as a write-in candidate for Broward County Commission for District 2. A resident voter filed a complaint alleging that Francois was not properly qualified to be a write-in candidate because he did not physically live within the boundaries of the district as required by Fla. Stat. 99.0615. In response, Francois argued that section 99.0615 is facially unconstitutional. The circuit court found that section 99.0615 is constitutional and disqualified Francois as a write-in candidate. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the statute is facially unconstitutional because the timing of its residency requirement for write-in candidates conflicts with the timing of the residency requirement for county commission candidates as established by Fla. Const. art. VIII, 1(e). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 99.0615 contravenes the residency requirement applicable to county commissioners under Fla. Const. art. VIII, 1(e), and thus Francois properly qualified as a write-in candidate; and (2) write-in candidates are included within the intended meaning of "opposition" as used in a different constitutional provision, and therefore, it was appropriate for the Democratic Party's primary election to be closed to only Democratic-registered voters. View "Brinkmann v. Francois" on Justia Law 2016-02-04 state Florida Florida Supreme Court James E.C. Perry SC14-1899 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2016/2016-0071.html State ex rel. Duclos v. Bd. of Elections 2016-02-02T14:02:32-08:00 2016-02-02T14:27:58-08:00 On December 1, 2015, Gary Lee filed a petition and declaration of candidacy for sheriff at the Hamilton County Board of Elections. On January 4, 2016, David Duclos filed a written protest with the Board of Elections, alleging that Lee's application was incomplete because it did not include the result sheet of an FBI background check. During the course of a protest hearing held by the Board, the report from the FBI was entered into evidence. The Board then denied the protest. On January 14, 2016, Duclos filed a mandamus complaint but, five days later, sought to dismiss that action and filed a new complaint for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition on the grounds of laches, concluding that Duclos unreasonably delayed bringing this action to the prejudice of Respondents. View "State ex rel. Duclos v. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law 2016-02-02 state Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Per Curiam 2016-0071 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/15-1356/15-1356-2016-02-01.html Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez 2016-02-01T14:00:05-08:00 2016-02-01T19:54:46-08:00 In 2012, Plaintiffs brought this action arguing that they were unlawfully removed from the Commonwealth's active voter registry for having failed to vote in the 2008 election for Resident Commissioner. On interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit held that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) bars Puerto Rico from removing voters from the registry for the office of Resident Commissioners unless they fail to participate in the preceding two general federal elections. On remand, the district court found in favor of Plaintiffs and issued injunctive and declaratory relief from removing otherwise eligible voters from the active election registry unless HAVA's requirements are met. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the National Voter Registration Act does not apply to Puerto Rico and thus does not supersede the Commonwealth's voter deactivation procedures; (2) HAVA invalidates the deactivation procedures of Article 6.021 of Puerto Rico Act No. 2011 insofar as it applies to voter eligibility for federal elections; and (3) Plaintiffs may bring a private cause of action seeking relief under HAVA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez" on Justia Law 2016-02-01 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Kermit Victor Lipez 15-1356 15-1722 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2016/2015-2092.html State ex rel. Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. v. Greene County Bd. of Elections 2016-01-29T07:03:16-08:00 2016-01-31T13:47:24-08:00 Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. sought extraordinary relief to prevent a tax levy for Sugarcreek Township from appearing on the March 15, 2016 election ballot because it was allegedly not in compliance with state laws. The Supreme Court (1) granted in part the requested writ of mandamus, holding that the Board of Election was under a clear legal duty to remove the levy from the ballot because it was untimely; but (2) declined to issue a writ of prohibition because the Board was not engaged in a quasi-judicial function when it prepared the ballot. View "State ex rel. Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. v. Greene County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law 2016-01-29 state Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Per Curiam 2015-2092 http://law.justia.com/cases/louisiana/supreme-court/2016/2015-ca-1750.html Shepherd v. Schedler 2016-01-27T12:01:49-08:00 2016-01-27T12:30:04-08:00 In 2015, Derrick Shepherd filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and for Injunctive Relief. He filed a notice of candidacy qualifying form with the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court's office in which he certified that he would be a candidate for the office of State Representative for District 87 of the Louisiana House of Representatives in the primary election to be held on October 24, 2015. Shepherd's petition alleged that the District Attorney for the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District, filed a petition objecting to Shepherd's candidacy because Shepherd pled guilty to a felony in a United States District Court in 2008, and it had been less than fifteen years since he completed his sentence, circumstances which disqualified Shepherd from seeking office pursuant to La. Const. art. I, section 10(B). At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the district court rendered judgment in Shepherd's favor, declaring Article I, section 10(B) of the Constitution null and void for failure to comply with the requirements of Article XIII, section 1 of the Constitution for promulgation of amendments to the Constitution. After reviewing the record, the legislative instruments, and the constitutional provision at issue, the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the constitutionally mandated requirements for amending the constitution were not followed in this case. View "Shepherd v. Schedler" on Justia Law 2016-01-27 state Louisiana Louisiana Supreme Court John L. Weimer 2015-CA-1750 http://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/2016/16-0013.html State ex rel. Biafore v. Tomblin 2016-01-26T12:06:51-08:00 2016-01-26T12:58:29-08:00 Petitioners, chair of the state Democratic Executive Committee and the members of the state Democratic Executive Committee for the Ninth Senatorial District, requested the issuance of a writ of mandamus against Respondents, the Governor and members of the state Republic Executive Committee for the Ninth Senatorial District, seeking to compel the Governor to fill a vacancy in the West Virginia Senate from a list of three candidates to be selected by Petitioners. The Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause and ordered Respondents to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be awarded as requested by Petitioners. After an oral hearing, the Supreme Court denied the requested writ, holding that the vacancy is to be filled from a list of three candidates to be selected by the Republic Executive Committee for the Ninth Senatorial District based upon the outgoing senator's most recent affiliation with the Republican Party. View "State ex rel. Biafore v. Tomblin" on Justia Law 2016-01-22 state West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Margaret L. Workman 16-0013 http://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2016/113528.html State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita 2016-01-22T08:01:21-08:00 2016-01-23T12:26:37-08:00 At issue in this case was a City of Wichita ordinance that reduces the severity level of a first-offense conviction for possession of marijuana under certain circumstances. Relying upon the Kansas initiative and referendum statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. 12-3013, the city council submitted a general description of the proposed ordinance as a ballot question. City electors approved the ordinance in the April 2015 general election. The State subsequently filed this petition in quo warranto asking the Supreme Court to declare the ordinance null and void. The State also asked the Court to permanently prohibit the City from publishing, implementing and enforcing the ordinance, arguing, inter alia, that it was not adopted with the procedures set forth in section 12-3013(a). The Supreme Court agreed and granted the State's request for a writ in quo warranto, holding that the ordinance is null and void because its proponents failed to follow the procedural requirements of the Kansas initiative and referendum statute. View "State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita" on Justia Law 2016-01-22 state Kansas Kansas Supreme Court Lawton R. Nuss 113528 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/15-5016/15-5016-2016-01-21.html Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC 2016-01-21T11:31:17-08:00 2016-01-21T19:10:45-08:00 Plaintiff filed suit challenging the FEC's rule requiring corporations and labor organizations to disclose only those donations "made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications." At issue in this appeal is whether the rule survives Step Two of the Chevron framework and State Farm's arbitrary and capricious test, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. The court held that the FEC's purpose requirement satisfies both Chevron Step Two and State Farm review has the benefit both of being a correct application of black letter administrative law and of forestalling to some other time an answer to the important constitutional questions bubbling beneath the surface of this case. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC" on Justia Law 2016-01-21 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Janice Rogers Brown 15-5016 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/15-3447/15-3447-2016-01-19.html Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Husted 2016-01-19T09:00:42-08:00 2016-01-19T09:16:10-08:00 In 2013 Ohio enacted Rev. Code 3503.06(C)(1)(a): "Except for a nominating petition for presidential electors, no person shall be entitled to circulate any petition unless the person is a resident of this state." Non-profit organizations wrote to Secretary of State Husted, asking whether he planned to "reject[] petitions where the circulator is domiciled in a state other than Ohio[.]" "While a court may ultimately find this law unconstitutional," Husted responded, "that determination is a decision for the judicial branch, not the Secretary of State… this office and county boards of election will implement this law like any other until such time as the legislature acts to make a statutory change or a court directs otherwise." One of the non-profit groups hired a firm to gather signatures for an initiative petition, paying a higher-than-usual fee to ensure that the firm hired in-state signature gatherers. The organizations then sought a declaration that the residency requirement was unconstitutional, an injunction prohibiting its enforcement, and damages against Husted "as compensation for extra petition circulation charges." The court granted the plaintiffs a permanent injunction and denied Husted's qualified-immunity motion. The Sixth Circuit reversed the qualified-immunity ruling; the Secretary had no clearly established duty to decline enforcement of the properly enacted and presumptively constitutional statute. View "Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Husted" on Justia Law 2016-01-19 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Jeffrey S. Sutton 15-3447 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2016/2015-2061.html State ex rel. Carrier v. Hilliard City Council 2016-01-19T08:14:10-08:00 2016-01-19T13:20:04-08:00 A petition was submitted to to the clerk of the Hilliard City Council to amend the city charter. The City Council voted against an ordinance to place the proposed charter amendment on the March 15, 2016 ballot. Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Hilliard City Council to approve an ordinance placing a proposed city-charter amendment on the March 15, 2016 ballot. Relators subsequently commenced this original action for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the city council's objections to the petition were unavailing, and therefore, the city council was compelled to approve the necessary ordinance to place the initiative petition on the March 15, 2016 ballot. View "State ex rel. Carrier v. Hilliard City Council" on Justia Law 2016-01-19 state Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Per Curiam 2015-2061 http://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2016/114425.html IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 403 STATE QUESTION NO. 779 2016-01-12T12:06:33-08:00 2016-01-13T04:36:24-08:00 Initiative Petition No. 403 sought to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by adding a new Article 13-C. The proposed article would create the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund, designed to provide for the improvement of public education in Oklahoma through an additional one-cent sales and use tax. Funds generated by the one-cent tax would be distributed to public school districts, higher education institutions, career and technology centers, and early childhood education providers for certain educational purposes outlined in the proposed article. Additionally, a percentage of the funds would be used to provide a $5,000.00 pay raise to all public school teachers. Opponents challenged the initiative, arguing it violated the one general subject rule of Art. 24, sec. 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Initiative Petition No. 403 did not violate the one general subject rule and was legally sufficient for submission to the people of Oklahoma. View "IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 403 STATE QUESTION NO. 779" on Justia Law 2016-01-12 state Oklahoma Oklahoma Supreme Court Per Curiam 114425 http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/d067918.html Clark v. McCann 2016-01-11T10:00:24-08:00 2016-01-11T12:32:40-08:00 In November 2014, a run-off election was held for a seat on the Chula Vista City Council. In early December 2014, Michael Vu, the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, certified the official canvas results showing that John McCann was the winner with 18,448 votes - two more than Steve Padilla, who received 18,446 votes. Contestant Aurora Clark appealed the trial court's denial of her election contest challenging 12 uncounted ballots. She alleged that each of the contested ballots (provisional or mail) was cast by a properly registered voter in Chula Vista and should have been counted. This appeal principally dealt with the handling of provisional ballots where the voter does not provide a current residence address on the ballot envelope. Because the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the elections official did not abuse his discretion, the Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Clark v. McCann" on Justia Law 2016-01-11 state California California Court of Appeal Judith McConnell D067918 http://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2015/s-15662.html Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance 2015-12-31T10:00:10-08:00 2016-01-01T04:47:14-08:00 The Lieutenant Governor declined to certify a proposed ballot initiative that would ban commercial set net fishing in nonsubsistence areas, reasoning that the initiative was a constitutionally prohibited appropriation of public assets. The superior court approved the initiative, concluding that set netters were not a distinct commercial user group and that the legislature and Board of Fisheries would retain discretion to allocate the salmon stock to other commercial fisheries. After the Supreme Court's review of the matter, it concluded that set netters were a distinct commercial user group that deserved recognition in the context of the constitutional prohibition on appropriations. The Court therefore reverse the superior court's judgment because this proposed ballot initiative would have completely appropriated salmon away from set netters and prohibited the legislature from allocating any salmon to that user group. View "Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance" on Justia Law 2015-12-31 state Alaska Alaska Supreme Court Joel H. Bolger S-15662 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2015/2015-0255.html State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections 2015-12-22T06:02:39-08:00 2015-12-22T18:47:13-08:00 Mary Siegel, a registered elector, filed a challenge to the voter registration of Randy Simes. The Board of Elections voted to reject the challenge. Barbara Holwadel and Steven Johnson (together, Holwadel) subsequently filed an action in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus overturning the board's decision. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that Holwadel failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Board had a clear legal duty to strike Simes from the voter rolls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly refused to dismiss this case for lack of standing; and (2) the court of appeals properly refused to grant a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Elections and its members to remove Simes from the voter rolls. View "State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law 2015-12-22 state Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Per Curiam 2015-0255 http://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/2015/35-075.html Clark v. Mitchell 2015-12-21T10:08:39-08:00 2015-12-21T11:23:25-08:00 There was only one judge on the Tenth Judicial District Court which had jurisdiction over the counties of Quay, DeBaca, and Harding. In 2008, Albert J. Mitchell, Jr. won a contested election for Tenth Judicial District judge against Judge Donald Schutte. Pursuant to 19 Article VI, Section 33 of the New Mexico Constitution, Judge Mitchell ran for retention in the 2014 general election. Prior to the retention election, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission evaluated Judge Mitchell and recommended that voters retain him in the general election. Despite the Commission's recommendation, Judge Mitchell was not retained, failing to garner at least fifty-seven percent of the votes. A district court judges nominating committee was convened to solicit and evaluate applicants to fill Judge Mitchell's impending vacancy. Before the nominating committee could meet, Petitioner Pamela Clark unsuccessfully tried to prevent to nominating committee from considering Judge Mitchell's application by petitioning the New Mexico Supreme Court. The nominating committee ultimately submitted the names of both applicants to the governor for consideration. Governor Susana Martinez appointed Judge Mitchell to the vacancy. This case called upon the New Mexico Supreme Court to interpret the 1988 amendments to the New Mexico Constitution governing judicial selection. The question before the Court was whether Article VI, Section 33 prohibited a district judge who lost a nonpartisan retention election from being appointed to fill the resulting vacancy created by that judge's nonretention. The Court held that the New Mexico Constitution did not prohibit a judicial nominating commission from considering and nominating, or the governor from appointing, an otherwise qualified judicial applicant to fill a vacant judicial office based on the judicial applicant's nonretention in the immediately preceding election. "We recognize that our holding may seem counterintuitive at first glance. However, our holding is governed by our Constitution's provisions governing judicial succession, not retention." View "Clark v. Mitchell" on Justia Law 2015-12-21 state New Mexico New Mexico Supreme Court Petra Jimenez Maes 35,075 http://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/supreme-court/2015/201pa12-3.html Dickson v. Rucho 2015-12-18T09:04:03-08:00 2015-12-18T13:03:30-08:00 Following the 2010 decennial census, the General Assembly enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives and for the North Carolina districts for the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiffs, registered voters, filed a complaint seeking to have the redistricting plans declared invalid on both constitutional and statutory grounds. The three-judge panel reviewing the redistricting plans upheld the plans. The Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court vacated this Court's opinion and remanded for further consideration in light of its recent decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama. The Supreme Court reconsidered this case in light of Alabama and affirmed the three-judge panel's judgment, holding that the General Assembly's enacted plans do not violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and satisfy state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements. Moreover, the three-judge panel's decision fully complies with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Alabama. View "Dickson v. Rucho" on Justia Law 2015-12-18 state North Carolina North Carolina Supreme Court Paul M. Newby 201PA12-3 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/15-4270/15-4270-2015-12-09.html Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted 2015-12-09T08:30:49-08:00 2015-12-09T09:05:37-08:00 The Libertarian Party claimed unequal treatment under Ohio's election laws. The court entered partial summary judgment, finding that the statutes did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments and that sovereign immunity barred state constitutional claims, effectively denying a preliminary injunction. Such denials are immediately appealable (28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1)), but the Party filed a Rule 54(b) motion, asking that portions of the decision be made final (appealable). The court has not ruled on the motion. The Party filed notice of appeal 35 days after the court issued its order. The Sixth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 54(b), rulings that do not dispose of an entire case do not end the action; but if the court "expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay," it may "direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties." A Rule 54(b) motion cannot request that a judgment be altered; granting the motion serves only to make a nonappealable order an appealable judgment. Unlike a Rule 59(e) request, the motion did not seek a modification of the order's substance, but asked only that it be made appealable. Since the relevant portions of the order were immediately appealable under 1292, those portions were already a "judgment" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). View "Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted" on Justia Law 2015-12-09 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Batchelder 15-4270 http://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2015/sc14-1905-0.html League of Women Voters v. Detzner 2015-12-02T10:02:54-08:00 2015-12-02T19:14:37-08:00 This opinion was intended to bring finality to litigation concerning the state's congressional redistricting that has spanned nearly four years in state courts. This case was before the Supreme Court for approval of a final congressional districting plan in accordance with the Court's previous opinion in Apportionment VII and the Fair Districts Amendment. The Court approved in full the trial court's "Order Recommending Adoption of a Remedial Map," and directed that the plan approved here shall be used in the 2016 congressional elections and thereafter until the next decennial redistricting. In so doing, the Court rejected the Legislature's contention that this decision moves the "goalposts" on the Legislature in its redrawing of the districts and dismissed the contention that the courts adopted a plan drawn by "Democratic operatives." View "League of Women Voters v. Detzner" on Justia Law 2015-12-02 state Florida Florida Supreme Court Barbara J. Pariente SC14-1905 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2015/s063457.html Kendoll v. Rosenblum 2015-11-27T08:07:05-08:00 2015-11-27T09:43:20-08:00 Petitioner sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition (IP) 40 (2016), contending that the caption, the "yes" result statement, and the summary did not comply with requirements set out in ORS 250.035(2). IP 40 was a proposed statute that would make several changes to state law relating to the use and speaking of the English language. Section 1 declared English to be the official language of the State of Oregon and then required that official state actions be taken in English. Section 1 further provided that, with exceptions, persons who spoke only English must be eligible for all programs, benefits, and opportunities of the state and its subdivisions, including employment; and that English-only speakers may not be penalized, or have their rights or opportunities impaired, solely because they speak only English. Section 2 set out exceptions to certain aspects of section 1, detailing purposes for which the state and its "political subdivisions" may use a language other than English. Section 5 granted standing to any resident or person doing business in Oregon to seek a declaratory judgment as to whether a violation of the proposed statute has occurred and, if so, to obtain injunctive relief, with costs and reasonable attorney fees awarded to the prevailing party. After review of the initiative petition, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the "yes" result statement did not substantially comply with that statutory standard. The Attorney General was ordered to modify the "yes" result statement to more clearly and accurately describe two significant components of IP 40 not already captured in that statement. View "Kendoll v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2015-11-27 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court Virginia Linder S063457 http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2015/s063527.html Blosser v. Rosenblum 2015-11-27T08:07:05-08:00 2015-11-27T09:43:25-08:00 In consolidated cases, petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petitions 45 and 46 (2016) (IP 45 and IP 46), contending that the caption, the "yes" results statements, and the summaries did not comply with requirements set out in ORS 250.035(2). IP 46 was an alternative proposal to IP 45. Both Initiative Petitions would have amended aspects of a bill that the legislature enacted during the 2015 legislative session, Senate Bill (SB) 324 (Or Laws 2015, ch 4). SB 324 made changes to a 2009 state law that permitted the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to adopt standards and requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to adopt low carbon fuel standards for gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuels, as well as a schedule to reduce by 2020 the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent below 2010 levels. IP 46 would change parts of the original 2009 law and SB 324, repeating some (but not all) of the changes contained in IP 45, and making other changes. After review of petitioners' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that text of the Initiative Petitions did not substantially comply with that statutory standard. The Supreme Court therefore referred both ballot titles to the Attorney General for modification of the caption, the "yes" result statements, and the summaries. View "Blosser v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law 2015-11-27 state Oregon Oregon Supreme Court Richard C. Baldwin S063527 S063528 http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/a142500.html Golden Gate Hill Development Co. v. County of Alameda 2015-11-25T17:00:26-08:00 2015-11-27T06:35:51-08:00 In November 2009, County of Alameda voters approved Measures I and J levying special parcel taxes by the Albany Unified School District. Plaintiff-appellant Golden Gate Hill Development Company, Inc. was the owner of a parcel of real property in the City of Albany subject to the tax. In February 2014, appellant filed suit against the County and District seeking a refund of taxes paid under the Measures. Golden Gage Hill alleged the tax rates in the Measures were improper because different rates are imposed on residential and nonresidential properties, as well as nonresidential properties of different sizes. The complaint referenced a recent decision in this district, "Borikas v. Alameda Unified School Dist." (214 Cal.App.4th 135 (2013)), which declared invalid a different parcel tax with similar rate classifications. Respondents moved to dismiss, contending the complaint failed to state a claim because, under Code of Civil Procedure section 860, et seq. ("the validation statutes"), appellant was required to present its claims in a "reverse validation action" within 60 days of passage of the Measures. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Because appellant has not shown there was a basis for its refund claim independent of the alleged invalidity of the Measures, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Golden Gate Hill Development Co. v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law 2015-11-25 state California California Court of Appeal Mark B. Simons A142500 http://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2015/s-15397.html RBG Bush Planes, LLC v. Alaska Public Offices Commission 2015-11-25T10:00:10-08:00 2015-11-25T10:46:56-08:00 In September 2010 RBG Bush Planes, LLC (Bush Planes) allowed two candidates for public office for the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly to travel on a series of preexisting flights throughout the borough. Bush Planes charged the candidates a fraction of the fuel costs associated with those flights. The Alaska Public Offices Commission investigated these charges, determined that Bush Planes' fractional fuel-cost methodology did not represent a commercially reasonable rate, and assessed a $25,500 fine against Bush Planes for making illegal corporate contributions. Bush Planes appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the Commission. Bush Planes again appealed, this time to the Supreme Court, arguing: (1) that the Commission erred when it found Bush Planes had violated Alaska law; and (2) that the fine the Commission imposed was unconstitutionally excessive. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission. View "RBG Bush Planes, LLC v. Alaska Public Offices Commission" on Justia Law 2015-11-25 state Alaska Alaska Supreme Court Craig F. Stowers S-15397 http://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2015/sc94951.html Geier v. Missouri Ethics Comm'n 2015-11-24T11:02:11-08:00 2015-11-24T11:39:28-08:00 Gerald Geier, an accountant, was the treasurer of Stop Now!, a Missouri political action committee (PAC). Geier was required to register the PAC with the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC). Stop Now! became inactive after 2003, and the PAC's bank account closed in 2006. When Stop Now! failed to file disclosure reports for the first three quarters of 2011, the MEC opened an investigation. The MEC subsequently filed a complaint against Geier and Stop Now!, alleging that they violated Mo. Rev. Stat. 13.046.1, 130.021.4(1) and 130.021.7 by failing to timely file disclosure reports and failing to notify the MEC of the closure of the PAC's bank account. After a hearing, the MEC found probable cause that Geier and Stop Now! knowingly violated the applicable statutes. Geier sought judicial review, challenging, inter alia, the constitutional validity of the reporting statutes. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the MEC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the reporting statutes are constitutional as applied; (2) Geier's challenges to the facial validity of the reporting statutes are not ripe; (3) section 105.961.3, the statute that requires the MEC's hearings be closed to the public, does not violate the First or Sixth Amendments; and (4) the MEC had authority to investigate Geier. View "Geier v. Missouri Ethics Comm'n" on Justia Law 2015-11-24 state Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri Mary R. Russell SC94951 http://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2015/cv-15-285.html Gray v. Thomas-Barnes 2015-11-19T09:00:37-08:00 2015-11-19T11:25:33-08:00 Appellant, Floyd Gray, filed a complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment seeking to challenge the eligibility of Appellee, Mary Thomas-Barnes, as a candidate in the mayoral election in Dermott, Arkansas. Appellant alleged that Appellee was a convicted felon and therefore asked for a declaration that Appellee was unqualified to seek election. The circuit court dismissed Appellant's complaint based on lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Appellant's pleading, which was filed the day before the election, was an attempt to bring a pre-election challenge by post-election means. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal as moot because the election had already been held. View "Gray v. Thomas-Barnes" on Justia Law 2015-11-19 state Arkansas Arkansas Supreme Court Karen R. Baker CV-15-285 http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2015/92075-3.html Huff v. Wyman 2015-11-12T11:04:16-08:00 2015-11-12T18:22:40-08:00 Appellants sought to reverse a superior court order denying appellants' motion to enjoin the secretary of state from placing Initiative 1366 (I-1366) on the November 2015 general election ballot. Appellants claimed the initiative went beyond the scope of the people's initiative power under article II, section 1 of the Washington constitution and was therefore not proper for direct legislation. The trial court ruled that: ( 1) appellants had standing to challenge the initiative as taxpayers, county election officials, and legislators; (2) this was a challenge to the scope of the initiative and therefore appropriate for preelection review; (3) the "fundamental, stated and overriding purpose" of I-1366 was to amend the constitution in violation of article II of the state constitution; (4) I-1366 violated article XXIII of the state constitution; and (5) appellants were unable to show a "clear legal or equitable right" to an injunction under "Rabon v. City of Seattle," ( 957 P.2d 621 (1998)), because the Supreme Court had yet to decide whether preelection restrictions on initiatives infringe on free speech rights under the First Amendment or article I, section 5 of the Washington constitution. After review, the Washington Court determined that appellants did not make a clear showing that the subject matter of the initiative was not within the broad scope of the people's power of direct legislation and, as such, failed to demonstrate a clear legal right for injunctive relief. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court. View "Huff v. Wyman" on Justia Law 2015-11-12 state Washington Washington Supreme Court Barbara Madsen 92075-3 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15-16142/15-16142-2015-11-10.html Public Integrity Alliance v. City of Tucson 2015-11-10T10:03:45-08:00 2015-11-10T21:42:36-08:00 Plaintiffs, five Tucson voters and a non-profit corporation called PIA, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Tucson's hybrid system for electing members of its city council. The Supreme Court has held that the primary and general elections are a "single instrumentality for choice of officers." Because the primary and general elections are two parts of a "unitary" process, a citizen's right to vote in the general election may be meaningless unless he is also permitted to vote in the primary. Because the constituency of the representative to be elected remains static throughout the election process, the geographical unit must also remain static throughout that process. In this case, such mismatches between voters at different stages of a single election cycle are not constitutionally permissible. The court concluded that the practical effect of the Tucson system is to give some of a representative's constituents - those in his home ward - a vote of disproportionate weight. The court held that every otherwise eligible voter who will be a constituent of the winner of the general election must have an equal opportunity to participate in each election cycle through which that candidate is selected. Because all Tucsonans have an equal interest in determining who the nominees will be, the city may not exclude out-of-ward voters from the primaries. Thus, the court rejected the city's final argument that the hybrid system is a reasonable "residency restriction" on the right to vote. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the city. View "Public Integrity Alliance v. City of Tucson" on Justia Law 2015-11-10 federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Alex Kozinski 15-16142 http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/supreme-court/2015/14-0470.html Cascos v. Tarrant County Democratic Party 2015-10-30T06:08:22-08:00 2015-10-30T11:35:14-08:00 Political parties may apply to the Secretary of State for state funds to reimburse expenses connected with administering primary elections. After Wendy Davis was certified as the Democratic nominee for State Senate District 10 in the primary election, Davis's Republican opponent sued to remove Davis from the general election ballot. The challenge failed, and Davis prevailed in the general election. The state and county Democratic Party chairpersons subsequently applied for reimbursement of attorney's fees related to defending the challenge to Davis's candidacy. The Secretary of State declined to reimburse the legal expenses to the Democratic Party because the party incurred those expenses after the primary election and in connection with the general election. The district court upheld the Secretary's decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the legal expenses were plainly connected to the primary election because they were based on Davis's alleged constitutional ineligibility to appear on the primary election ballot. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Secretary did not abuse his discretion in denying the requested reimbursement from the primary election fund, as the Secretary is not obligated to reimburse a political party for legal expenses incurred in defending its nominee's right to appear on the general-election ballot. View "Cascos v. Tarrant County Democratic Party" on Justia Law 2015-10-30 state Texas Supreme Court of Texas Per Curiam 14-0470 http://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2015/2015-ec-01387-sct.html Basil v. Browning 2015-10-29T11:02:55-08:00 2015-10-29T12:16:09-08:00 The Union County Election Commission disqualified Roger Browning from running for Union County Superintendent of Education, finding that he was not a qualified elector of the Union County School District. The Circuit Court overturned the Commission's decision and issued an injunction requiring Browning's name to be placed on the ballot for the general election. James Basil, the incumbent Union County Superintendent of Education appealed the circuit court's decision, arguing that Browning did not meet the residency requirement to serve as county superintendent. After review, the Supreme Court held that Browning, a resident of the New Albany Municipal Separate School District, was not eligible to run for Union County Superintendent of Education. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Circuit Court and rendered judgment in Basil's favor. View "Basil v. Browning" on Justia Law 2015-10-29 state Mississippi Supreme Court of Mississippi William L. Waller, Jr. 2015-EC-01387-SCT http://law.justia.com/cases/connecticut/supreme-court/2015/sc19442.html Arras v. Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 14 2015-10-14T05:00:26-08:00 2015-10-14T17:06:25-08:00 Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that the towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem held a referendum on the question of whether to approve a resolution by the Board of Education for Regional School District Number 14 authorizing the issuance of bonds and notes to finance school construction expenses without complying with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-56, 10-47c and 9-226 requiring towns to publish warning of a referendum in the same manner as provided for the election of town officials. Plaintiffs contended that this failure rendered the referendum null and void ab initio. Defendants, the towns and the board of education, filed motions to strike Plaintiffs' claims, which the trial court granted in part. As to the remaining claims, the trial court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendants' failure to comply with the notice provisions of the governing statutes did not automatically require the invalidation of the referendum; and (2) there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the results of the referendum were seriously in doubt as the result of Defendants' failure to properly warn the referendum pursuant to the applicable statute. View "Arras v. Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 14" on Justia Law 2015-10-20 state Connecticut Connecticut Supreme Court Christine S. Vertefeuille SC19442 http://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/court-of-chancery/2015/ca-10847-vcl-0.html Young v. Red Clay Consolidated Sch. Dist. 2015-10-07T06:00:42-08:00 2015-10-07T11:48:13-08:00 In 2015, Red Clay Consolidated School District (Red Clay) sought approval from voters to increase certain school-related property taxes. The referendum passed. Plaintiffs were residents of Red Clay who opposed the tax increase but did not vote because they were unable to access the polls. Plaintiffs brought this complaint asserting that Red Clay deprived them of their right to vote without due process of law and denied them equal protection, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Red Clay violated Del. Const. art. I, 3, which states that all elections shall be free and equal. Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted that Red Clay raised impediments to voting by elderly and disabled residents, who Red Clay believed would oppose the tax increase. Red Clay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Chancery denied Red Clay's motion, concluding that Plaintiffs pled sufficient facts to move beyond the pleading stage. View "Young v. Red Clay Consolidated Sch. Dist." on Justia Law 2015-10-07 state Delaware Delaware Court of Chancery Laster CA 10847-VCL http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2015/2015-1570.html State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit County Bd. of Elections 2015-10-02T13:06:56-08:00 2015-10-02T14:21:44-08:00 Relator, Richard Burroughs, submitted a nominating petition containing twenty-four valid signatures to run as an independent candidate for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the November 3, 2015 election. The Summit County Board of Elections rejected four petition signatures because they did not match the signatures on the electors' voter-registration forms. Relator sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to certify him for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the general election. On the authority of State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections, also decided today, the Supreme Court granted a writ, concluding that the Board abused its discretion in rejecting the four petition signatures and in denying Relator a place on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law 2015-10-02 state Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Per Curiam 2015-1570 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2015/2015-1505.html State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections 2015-10-02T13:06:55-08:00 2015-10-02T14:10:03-08:00 Relator, Douglas Crowl, gathered signatures on a nominating petition to run for the position of Porter Township trustee in the November 3, 2015 general election. Crowl timely filed the petition with the Delaware County Board of Elections. The Board marked eight signatures as not genuine and determined that Crowl's petition did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Crowl objected, but the Board denied the protest. Crowl sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to place his name on the November 2015 general-election ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that because the Board admitted that the eight signatures in question were genuine, the Board abused its discretion when it denied Crowl a place on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law 2015-10-02 state Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Per Curiam 2015-1505