Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

After the Texas Legislature amended the Election Code in 2021, the United States and others sued, alleging the changes were racially discriminatory. When Plaintiffs sought discovery from individual, nonparty state legislators, those legislators withheld some documents, citing legislative privilege. The district court largely rejected the legislators’ privilege claims, and they filed this interlocutory appeal.   The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court explained that for their part, the legislators rely on the privilege for each of the disputed documents. Plaintiffs, too, do not argue that the documents are non-legislative. Instead, they argue only that the privilege either “was waived” or “must yield.” The court wrote that the legislators did not waive the legislative privilege when they “communicated with parties outside the legislature, such as party leaders and lobbyists.” The district court’s contrary holding flouts the rule that the privilege covers “legislators’ actions in the proposal, formulation, and passage of legislation.” Finally, the court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ reliance on Jefferson Community Health Care Centers, Inc. v. Jefferson Parish Government is misplaced. That decision stated that “while the common-law legislative immunity for state legislators is absolute, the legislative privilege for state lawmakers is, at best, one which is qualified.” But that case provides no support for the idea that state legislators can be compelled to produce documents concerning the legislative process and a legislator’s subjective thoughts and motives. View "LULAC Texas v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Alaska’s United States Representative Don Young died unexpectedly in March 2022. Following his death, Alaska held a special primary election and a special general election to select a candidate to complete the remainder of his term. Those special elections were conducted using ranked-choice voting procedures adopted by voters through a 2020 ballot measure. After the 2022 special primary election but before the vote was certified, the candidate who then had the third-most votes withdrew. The Division of Elections (Division) determined that it would remove the withdrawn candidate’s name from the special general election ballot, but would not include on the ballot the candidate who had received the fifth-most votes in the special primary election. Several voters brought suit against the Division challenging that decision. The superior court determined the Division’s actions complied with the law and granted summary judgment in favor of the Division. The voters appealed. Due to the time-sensitive nature of election appeals, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court in a short order dated June 25, 2022. The Court explained that because the Division properly applied a statutorily mandated 64-day time limit that prevented the addition of the special primary’s fifth-place candidate to the special general election ballot, and because the statutory mandate did not violate the voters’ constitutional rights, summary judgment was affirmed in favor of the Division. View "Guerin, et al. v. Alaska, Division of Elections" on Justia Law

In early 2022, while Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 related mask mandate remained binding throughout the state, three of five Richland School District board (RSDB) members voted to make face coverings optional in Richland schools. This vote conflicted directly with the then effective statewide masking requirement. Two months later, a group of Richland voters filed petitions to recall those three RSDB members. The petitioners alleged that the three RSDB members violated the Open Public Meetings Act of 1971 (OPMA), chapter 42.30 RCW, and knowingly violated state law in different ways when they voted to lift the mask mandate from the Richland schools. The trial court agreed that many of the counts containing those allegations were factually and legally sufficient to be placed on the ballot for the voters to decide. The Washington Supreme Court agreed with most of the trial court’s decisions. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to uphold the counts that the trial court grouped into synopses 1, 3, and 5: petitioners sufficiently alleged that the RSDB members knowingly violated both the OPMA and the statewide mask mandate. But the Court reversed the trial court’s decision to uphold the counts that the trial court grouped into synopsis 4: the aspirational, nonbinding, RSDB “Code of Ethics” could not form the legal basis for a recall charge. View "In re Recall of Bird, et al." on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth decertified certain voting equipment that Fulton County acquired from Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. (“Dominion”) in 2019 and used in the 2020 general election. The Secretary decertified the voting equipment after learning that, following the 2020 election, Fulton County had allowed Wake Technology Services, Inc. (“Wake TSI”), to perform a probing inspection of that equipment as well as the software and data contained therein. The Secretary maintained that Wake TSI’s inspection had compromised the integrity of the equipment. Fulton County and the other named Petitioner-Appellees petitioned in the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction to challenge the Secretary’s decertification authority generally and as applied in this case. During the pleading stage, the Secretary learned that Fulton County intended to allow another entity, Envoy Sage, LLC, to inspect the allegedly compromised equipment. The Secretary sought a protective order from the Commonwealth Court barring that inspection and any other third-party inspection during the litigation. The court denied relief. The Secretary appealed that ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which entered a temporary order on January 27, 2022, to prevent the inspection and to preserve the status quo during the Court's review of the Secretary’s appeal. Months later—and with no public consideration, official proceedings, or notice to the courts or other parties to this litigation—the County allowed yet another party, Speckin Forensics, LLC to inspect the voting equipment and electronic evidence at issue in this litigation. Upon learning of this alleged violation of the temporary order, the Secretary filed an “Application for an Order Holding [the County] in Contempt and Imposing Sanctions.” The Supreme Court found Fulton County willfully violated the Supreme Court's order. The Court found Fulton County and its various attorneys engaged in a "sustained, deliberate pattern of dilatory, obdurate, and vexatious conduct and have acted in bad faith throughout these sanction proceedings." Taken as a whole, that behavior prompted the Court to sanction both the County and the County Attorney. View "County of Fulton, et al. v. Sec. of Com." on Justia Law

The question presented for the Court of Appeal in this case was whether California could lawfully require anyone who seeks to vote in a presidential primary for a candidate of a particular political party to associate with that party as a condition of receiving a ballot with that candidate’s name on it. Plaintiffs contended that the answer was no, making Elections Code section 13102 unconstitutional. Defendants California Secretary of State and the State of California disputed this conclusion, asserting that the United States Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative on multiple occasions. Defendants pointed out, that when plaintiffs discuss a “right” to cast an expressive ballot simply for the sake of doing so, rather than to affect the outcome of an election, they have ceased talking about voting. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that elections have some “generalized expressive function.” California Court of Appeal concluded Plaintiffs’ inventive theories therefore did not supply a constitutional basis for evading binding legal precedent that foreclosed their arguments. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling sustaining the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. View "Boydston v. Padilla" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the motion filed by the Summit County Republican Party Executive Committee seeking an award of more than $69,000 in attorney fees that it allegedly incurred in this election dispute, holding that the Committee's arguments in support of the award were unavailing.In 2021, the Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling Secretary of State Frank LaRose to reappoint Bryan C. Williams to the Summit County Board of Elections. The Committee subsequently sought attorney fees, suggesting that the Court's decision granting a writ of mandamus established that LaRose acted in bad faith in rejecting the Committee's recommendation to reappoint Williams. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the Court's prior holding did not, in itself, support the Committee's recommendation to reappoint Williams, and the Committee's remaining arguments were unpersuasive. View "State ex rel. Summit County Republican Party Executive Committee v. LaRose" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tommy Hanes, David Calderwood, and Focus on America appealed a circuit court judgment dismissing their claims against John Merrill, in his official capacity as the Alabama Secretary of State, and Bill English, Wes Allen, Clay Crenshaw, Jeff Elrod, and Will Barfoot, in their official capacities as members of the Alabama Electronic Voting Committee ("the committee"). In May 2022, plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the general use of electronic-voting machines in the November 2022 general statewide election and in all future elections. Plaintiffs primarily sought to enjoin the usage of electronic-voting machines to count ballots. They specifically sought an order requiring that the 2022 election be conducted by paper ballot, with three individuals as independent counters who would manually count each ballot in full view of multiple cameras that could record and broadcast the counting proceedings, among other measures. Plaintiffs claimed the use of electronic voting machines was so insecure, both inherently and because of the alleged failures defendants in certifying the machines, that it infringed upon their constitutional right to vote, or, in the case of Focus on America, the right to vote of those persons it represented. Defendants moved to dismiss, citing Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P. They argued plaintiffs lacked standing, that the claims were moot, that State or Sovereign immunity under Art. I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution barred the claims, that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to § 17-16-44, Ala. Code 1975. The circuit court found that the jurisdiction-stripping statute barred the plaintiffs' action, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs' claims. Finding plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims, thus depriving the circuit court of jurisdiction over their complaint, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed dismissal. View "Hanes et al. v. Merrill, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling the Delaware County Board of Elections to place a township-zoning referendum petition on the May 2, 2023 ballot or, alternatively, the November 7, 2023 ballot, holding that Relator was entitled to the writ.In sustaining a protest to the referendum petition at issue, the Board determined that the petition failed to satisfy Ohio Rev. Code 519.12(H) because, among other things, it failed adequately to describe the nature of the requested zoning change. Relator then filed this expedited election action. The Supreme Court granted relief and ordered the Board of Elections to place the referendum on the May 2, 2023 ballot, holding that the Board abused its discretion and disregarded applicable law in deciding that the petition summary was deficient. View "State ex rel. Pinkston v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Relator ordering the Washington County Board of Elections to place his name on the May 2, 2023 primary election ballot as a Democratic candidate for mayor of Marietta and a motion to strike the Board's brief as untimely, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion.On January 17, 2023, Relator filed his nominating petition and declaration of candidacy with the Board. The Board voted not to certify Relator's candidacy for the primary-election ballot after determining that Ohio Rev. Code 3513.06 required Relator to list his former name on his nominating petition because the name change had occurred within the last five years. The Supreme Court denied Relator's ensuing petition seeking a writ of mandamus, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or clearly disregard applicable law in declining to certify Relator's name to the ballot. The Court further denied Relator's motion to strike the Board's brief as untimely. View "State ex rel. Gold v. Washington County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court holding that Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 8-103(b)(1) is constitutional, determining that the State Board of Elections had proven the existence of emergency circumstances, and permitting the State Board to begin canvassing absentee ballots on Oct. 1, 2022, holding that there was no error.In connection with the November 8, 2022 general election the State Board petitioned the circuit court to authorize local boards of election to begin canvassing absentee ballots on October, 2022, seeking the authority under section 8-103(b)(1). The State Board alleged that emergency circumstances existed that interfered with the electoral process because the State's combined experience with absentee ballots and elections led to the conclusion that the volume of absentee ballots it was likely to receive during the 2022 general election could not be processed in a timely manner if local board could not start canvassing the ballots until after the election. Daniel Cox intervened and opposed the petition, arguing that section 8-103(b)(1) violates separation of powers principles and that the forecasted problems did not constitute "emergency circumstances." The circuit could granted judgment for the State Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Cox was not entitled to relief on his assignments of error. View "In re Petition for Emergency Remedy of Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law